171–180 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re the most obvious stakeholder… the regulation is going to directly affect them.
No, the public at large are the stakeholders. The enterprise is the subject of the regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is basically a conspiracy theory I think this is pretty uncharitable, especially when I've provided you with a dataset you can evaluate yourself and an argument you can review for logical inconsistency. I have worked quite hard to locate data that supports your thesis, I can't find it. I've at least gone to the effort of documenting that search. Before you throw around such strong convictions, I suggest you act…
Respectfully, your link is not very convincing. But what’s interesting is that you are commenting on a post where Dario is suggesting that LLMs are so extremely powerful that they can take over, help synthesise bioweapons, help in warfare, help in drug discovery — the whole post here is to try and regulate this. If you believe AI can’t even create positive value let alone discover new things then your problem is some…
I agree on some points about the missuse of AI particularly for surveillance, military and propaganda.
But this reads like a post further glazing Mythos, and we are just one or two years away "trust us guys", and similar to Mistral's policy plea "please use AI everywhere or we are going to be left behind".
I had the hardest time accepting one of his first points that LLMs could barely write a line of code 4 years ago.
ChatGPT 3.5 was reasonable at code writing but hallucinated a lot of library functions. Yes we have better harnessing today, and models have been further finetunned with reallife code, but pushing this argument just to support his exponential narrative is deceptive. Like most AI marketing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is normal, expected, and healthy to offer criticism of self interested proposals. And mock even. What is unhealthy is to imply someone said what they did not.
If that's what this is, a bank-shot snarky criticism of the proposal, fair enough. I read it instead as a criticism of a stakeholder having the temerity to make a proposal in the first place. It's not their job to anticipate and capture all your objections. That's your job!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are some people loyal to corrupt governments?
What happened to indira ghandi?
> A wide range of pro-employment policy incentives can help to slow or reduce job displacement, including: wage insurance policies that compensate people when they have to take a lower-paying job, retention tax incentives to encourage employers not to make layoffs, workforce training grants, or infrastructure to facilitate matching of employers to employees to speed the rate of labor market adaptation. While the part…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction." "Yeah, and quotas on web scrapers!"
> We need an approach to make sure AI doesn't destroy the world and wipe humanity to extinction. That's easy. Stop training your AIs on cheesy old sci-fi that talks about robot uprisings. In fact, maybe y'all should just stop talking about robot uprisings altogether. Putting a stochastic parrot in charge of an agentic function-calling REPL doesn't somehow make it super-dangerous, except to the extent that dumb mistak…
I know this is likely just for IPO hype but when I read things like this I sometimes wonder if I must be missing something. I use agents everyday and find them really useful and they save me a lot of headache. At the same time I find that if I let it self-direct at a high level at all it generally makes bad choices that cause me headaches later so I can’t really give them autonomy. Enough people seem to believe this…
This is a very tech-focused message board, populated by mostly tech-insiders, so perhaps a little outside perspective will help people understand. Tech people are following a religious belief system whose utopian promise is the all-powerful computer that will end all suffering. I once read an article in reason magazine from over 30 years ago about how an advanced computer in the future will bring everyone who has eve…
The builders believe that the machine you describe will judge them positively, purely because they are building the system according to their judgment and beliefs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's what this is, a bank-shot snarky criticism of the proposal, fair enough. I read it instead as a criticism of a stakeholder having the temerity to make a proposal in the first place. It's not their job to anticipate and capture all your objections. That's your job!
[flagged]