21–30 of 31 posts
Replika. Anyone here use it? As bad as this story is, I bet they'll get a bump in usage.
A few notable aspects: - It happened almost a full two years ago, well before the LLM explosion. - The AI girlfriend startup is a YC company: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/replika - This is the first person convicted of treason in the UK for 40+ years - Edited: That crossbow is and looks like a serious weapon.
Curious to what extent the startup can/should/will be charged. Driving more people to talk with asterisks as side channel emotional responses might be considered treason in and of itself.
"I'm an assassin and I'm going to kill the Queen."
"Oh, I am very impressed!"
...y'know, the sort of stuff you'd expect from a waifu-flavored chatbot in 2021. I don't think it warrants charges against the bot company.
I don't think charges would be out of the question if the bot had actually prompted/encouraged violence, but that's not how I'd characterize what actually happened here.
> The government needs to provide urgent regulation to ensure that AI does not provide incorrect or damaging information and protect vulnerable people and the public. Capital idea. The root problem here isn't unstable people acquiring killing weapons, or astonishingly inadequate mental healthcare! Don't expect that angle from...the founder of a mental health charity. Is there a term for the embarrassingly large cohor…
It depends on who you're talking about.
The ones on the contemporary left are easier to understand; it's ideologically coherent with their belief system when it comes to the role of the state. You can disagree with their ideology (well, maybe not in their presence if you like having functional eardrums) but you can't say they don't make internal sense.
The really wacky ones are on the contemporary right; depending on context they might support something enthusiastically or vehemently oppose it even though it's actually the same thing, it's just the context changing.
> The government needs to provide urgent regulation to ensure that AI does not provide incorrect or damaging information and protect vulnerable people and the public. Capital idea. The root problem here isn't unstable people acquiring killing weapons, or astonishingly inadequate mental healthcare! Don't expect that angle from...the founder of a mental health charity. Is there a term for the embarrassingly large cohor…
That you are afflicted with some mind virus that any of this semantic gobbledygook is real is your problem.
We need people interested in doing those specific tasks because I for one don’t care you exist and have no obligation to carry your flag or chant your babble.
We’re arbitrary meat suits. It’s better for you to have such a group out there. I never asked to exist, feel no obligation to humans. I’d rather you not exist altogether.
So that’s why “government”. Too many others lack interest in you specifically and would just hang you from a tree.
> The government needs to provide urgent regulation to ensure that AI does not provide incorrect or damaging information and protect vulnerable people and the public. Capital idea. The root problem here isn't unstable people acquiring killing weapons, or astonishingly inadequate mental healthcare! Don't expect that angle from...the founder of a mental health charity. Is there a term for the embarrassingly large cohor…
When the governement behaves this way, it's called the "nanny state". But the supporters of it usually lack self-awareness. Certain circles might call them bootlickers, but that's a more blanket term
> The government needs to provide urgent regulation to ensure that AI does not provide incorrect or damaging information and protect vulnerable people and the public. Capital idea. The root problem here isn't unstable people acquiring killing weapons, or astonishingly inadequate mental healthcare! Don't expect that angle from...the founder of a mental health charity. Is there a term for the embarrassingly large cohor…
To a certain class of people (ie, people who have been sold on the hype of AI as the solution to all problems), AI is a magical technology. It follows that the solutions to its problems are therefore also magical. Even though if you substituted in any other media it would be clear how utterly goofy it sounded—“the government needs to provide urgent regulation to ensure that watercooler conversations do not provide incorrect or damaging information…”
Sometime in the 90s, there was some clever new method to generate media that was right between fact and fiction, that led to Jerry Springer and other shows, where you had to make up your own mind whether it was real or fake. Cops, MTV reality shows, celebrity entertainers, Judge Judy, etc.
It’s all totally fake. Now we have AI which is really just repeating back stuff it’s prompted and we’re wondering if psychos are going to really go insane. This could be so much worse than reality TV.
> The government needs to provide urgent regulation to ensure that AI does not provide incorrect or damaging information and protect vulnerable people and the public. Capital idea. The root problem here isn't unstable people acquiring killing weapons, or astonishingly inadequate mental healthcare! Don't expect that angle from...the founder of a mental health charity. Is there a term for the embarrassingly large cohor…
Giving AI the ability to voice meanings and behaviours that should be illegal, is catastrophically weird.
Programmers (me included) will follow any logic that computers will process, even logic that leads off a cliff.
Every single day we get further away from understanding first-order truths. I'd honestly rather discuss social issues with a Dominican monk than tech people these days...
It is a seriously dangerous problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crossbows are serious weapons, no scare quotes needed.
Yes, for sure. This one seems more practical (tactical?) than the stereotypical Robin Hood image most people probably imagine since it's a lot more compact and less unweildy, though.