Please don't say mean things about the AI I just invested a billion dollars in

Post by Brian_K_White » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 1:23 AM UTC

porkloin wrote: post #48

Froztnova wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's that brand of humor that isn't really humor anymore because the person writing it is clearly positively seething behind the keyboard and considers the whole affair to be deadly serious. I've never really been able to get into it either because it's sort of a paradox. If I agree, I feel bad enough about the actual issue that I'm not really in the mood to laugh, and if I disagree then I obviously won't like the jo…

For me I guess I don't really see what it's adding. You can watch an actual video clip of Jensen begging people not to "bully" or say "hurtful" things about AI while wearing a stupid leather jacket. It's a million times funnier to watch him squirm in real life. I find it unfunny for the same reason I don't find modern SNL intro bits about Trump funny. The source material is already insane to the point that it makes s…

Post by pluralmonad » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 1:26 AM UTC

jychang wrote: post #70

ajkjk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you make a thing and the thing is going to be inevitably used for a purpose and you could do something about that use and you do not --- then yes, it exists for that purpose, and you are responsible for it being used in that way. you don't get to say "ah well who could have seen this inevitable thing happening? it's a shame nobody could do anything about it" when it was you that could have done something about it.

Yeah. Example: stripper poles. Or hitachi magic wands. Those poles WERE NOT invented for strippers/pole dancers. Ditto for the hitachis. Even now, I'm pretty sure more firemen use the poles than strippers. But that doesn't stop the association from forming. That doesn't make me not feel a certain way if I see a stripper pole or a hitachi magic wand in your living room.

Post by CamperBob2 » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 1:27 AM UTC

solid_fuel wrote: post #66

ajross wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] are fiction machines. All they can do is hallucinate, and sometimes the hallucinations are useful. That alone rules them out, categorically, from any critical control loop. True, but no more true than it is if you replace the antecedent with "people". Saying that the tools make mistakes is correct. Saying that (like people) they can never be trained and deployed such that the mistakes are tolerable is an awfu…

> True, but no more true than it is if you replace the antecedent with "people". Incorrect. People are capable of learning by observation, introspection, and reasoning. LLMs can only be trained by rote example. Hallucinations are, in fact, an unavoidable property of the technology - something which is not true for people. [0] [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817

Post by justarandomname » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 1:28 AM UTC

quantum_state wrote: post #88

Viewed from historical perspective, big tech is really reaping the benefits of the intellectual wealth accumulated over many thousands of years by humanity collectively. This should be recognized to find a better path forward.

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 1:30 AM UTC

the_snooze wrote: post #83

only-one1701 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you’ve heard that the purpose of a system is what it does?

Exactly this. These systems are supposed to have been built by some of the smartest scientific and engineering minds on the planet, yet they somehow failed (or chose not) to think about second-order effects and what steady-state outcomes their systems will have. That's engineering 101 right there.