361–370 of 518 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're supposed to be giving governments the winning end because if they don't have it, robber barons will. Supposed to .
A huge part of the problem is that we’ve made everything so big that we have a choice between the dragon and the hydra. Fight for localization.
> But this government [...] I'm hearing a lot of this kind of thing. "Oh if only it was a different government". I'm sorry, but when you cry out for government involvement, it's not always going to be coming from the government you personally wanted. This is the whole problem with government involvement! I don't think that message is getting through, but it's the real lesson that should be learned here.
We're truly lost when we can't see that there is such a thing as good government and bad government. That there is a difference between corruption and modern liberal regulation that follows fair rules. That we can't see that it's ok to regulate CFCs to prevent ozone catastrophe, and not ok to use back room deals to pick favorites. It's not about sides or teams, but there is still right and wrong even in the administr…
> But this government [...] I'm hearing a lot of this kind of thing. "Oh if only it was a different government". I'm sorry, but when you cry out for government involvement, it's not always going to be coming from the government you personally wanted. This is the whole problem with government involvement! I don't think that message is getting through, but it's the real lesson that should be learned here.
We're truly lost when we can't see that there is such a thing as good government and bad government. That there is a difference between corruption and modern liberal regulation that follows fair rules. That we can't see that it's ok to regulate CFCs to prevent ozone catastrophe, and not ok to use back room deals to pick favorites. It's not about sides or teams, but there is still right and wrong even in the administr…
The real problem is when people demand heavy government involvement but don’t think about what could go wrong if an administration decided to misuse the regulation. They just assume it’s going to be used perfectly as they imagined it, usually to punish the companies they dislike while completely sparing the companies they like.
A good example is the usual chorus of people demanding heavy regulations or bans of social media, who always imagine that the regulator won’t touch their websites. They imagine surgical laws hitting Facebook and TikTok because they don’t use those websites, but they imagine the law won’t touch their Discords or require them to do any age verification on their phone or PC for the sites they use. Then we get the intrusive age and ID checking law proposals that everyone hates.
Meanwhile the world keeps spinning and most people don't even know what Anthropic is, much less anything about Fable. If AI lived up to a tenth of the promises the American labs produce, the world would be drastically different today. It's not. I'm doubtful of future impact based on that. I'm happy we can utilise current OSS models to the extent we can now. They'll improve. The world will continue as usual. And hopef…
Did you think 5 years into the invention of electricity the world already was vastly different? The internet? Would you have written them off because random people didn't know much about them at that point - which isnt even true as chatgpt has been ~ the 5th most popular site in the world for a couple of years now?
This technology is not new and has been around since well before the internet.
> I actually have another draft post in the barrel about how I think we should see a resurgence of the ‘flash game’ renaissance because it has become so much easier to make fun little games with AI tooling. I have been lurking on the aigamedev subreddit to see exactly what sort of games people are coming up with and I can say I have been incredibly disappointing. I've been faithfully trying the games people post and…
Also, thank you for sharing your experience. I recently joined that subreddit just to see what people are creating and I too have been unimpressed.
Disagree with the popular conclusions that this is either calculated anti-marketing or politically-motivated axe grinding. Both theories might carry some weight, but they belie the bigger picture. If you believe AI will be a determinant of economic growth, defense capacity, scientific advancement, and geopolitical supremacy over the next few decades, then state supervision/control was always inevitable. There's alrea…
What a coincidence, Anthropic getting handicapped so xAI can try to catch up
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is what I meant by anarchy - the state anarchism wants to achieve. Collins dictionary says anarchy is "4. the theory or practice of political anarchism" but it seems it might be a British usage. I do not think it is something that will work in practice, nor do I think it would be stable if it did.
There are two common uses of the term anarchy (and likely more, your definition appears to be the fourth in that dictionary). Anarchy as in political/social chaos, where "everything goes" Mad Max style, and anarchy as in a volunteer governance system of direct democracy with no coercive authority. The way you wrote it "which is worse than all but the very worst governments, and from which IMO some form of government…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thinking GPT2 was too dangerous is and was absurd.
At that time, nobody believed a dead internet was technically feasible. Maybe this is hard to remember now. The "danger" was in terms of spam / misinformation proliferation, not the same category of capabilities adjacent risks current discussed. You can hold your own opinions on spam/misinformation as a problem , but to say there was no credibly anticipated outsized downside to a sudden jump in human-passing text gen…
(It's also amazing to me that it took mere minutes for this observation, deep in a sub-thread, to get downvoted without any reply, with no obvious reason for it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're truly lost when we can't see that there is such a thing as good government and bad government. That there is a difference between corruption and modern liberal regulation that follows fair rules. That we can't see that it's ok to regulate CFCs to prevent ozone catastrophe, and not ok to use back room deals to pick favorites. It's not about sides or teams, but there is still right and wrong even in the administr…
I think everyone does see that there is good government and bad government. They just disagree about which one is the good one and which is the bad one. The real problem is when people demand heavy government involvement but don’t think about what could go wrong if an administration decided to misuse the regulation. They just assume it’s going to be used perfectly as they imagined it, usually to punish the companies…
I only know the time and place I've lived in (United States, born in 1977), but I feel like the trope of "all government is bad" has been the rallying cry of conservatives since the Reagan era.
I'm convinced enough people have grown up hearing that trope that your assumption is incorrect. I think a ton of people believe there can only be bad government because they've never had to think about it-- they've been told that from birth.
I'm not a student of history. Maybe this isn't a new thing and this "all government bad" trope has been a consistent feature of US politics. It doesn't feel like it, though.