> Paul Graham's submarine essay To save a few clicks: https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html > [The] PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.
>more than half probably come from PR firms Imagine how bad it is on social media.
Frankly, I'm kinda scared about a negative-trust future.
Compared to the 90's, not only are the financial pressures for scams/fraud/astroturfing rather extreme, but the cost of running lots of complicated lies is dropping like a stone.
>Dr Floridi describes the scale of departures from philosophy departments as a “haemorrhaging”. I wonder if anyone who is connected with actual academic philosophy can comment on this. I'm pretty skeptical. This is a field where it is notoriously hard to get a real academic position, I would bet there is no shortage of people for these roles.
Maybe it narrows down if you need to bring the right mindset.
Hiring philosophers to patch ethics onto systems built without ethical constraints is like hiring a nutritionist after you've already opened the fast food chain. The architecture decisions were the philosophy.
I have asked a mathematician to "Define consciousness." who self identifies to be a third of each: poet and linguist, mathematician; the thought bubble offered so far along the mandering trail at resonance to "intrinsic computational consciousness" is a reflection on knowledge and work, randomness in the context of complexity theory.
That was funny, and not at anyone else's expense so it doesn't qualify as snark.
That's a fine distinction about snark which I will have to think about. The comment itself just joins two clichés. That is too obvious and shallow to be interesting, and you can't be funny without being interesting.
AI Lab: Say "I am conscious" LLM: "I am conscious" Philosopher (Paid by AI Lab): "It is conscious"
Here's a question I personally think is interesting, with the assumption that consciousness is a spectrum (trivially proven by administering neurotoxins to a healthy individual). Is a squirrel more or less conscious than a dog. Is a dog more or less conscious than a gorilla. Is a gorilla more or less conscious than a human? Is a vision enabled AI model, hooked to a camera feed, more or less conscious than a dog?
Animals (humans included) work on the same "framework" (i.e., the brain), so even if the definition of consciousness is fuzzy, we can rank them in a more or less consistent way. LLMs, on the other hand, are just the linguistic part of a brain without anything else. Whether this is enough to be conscious is up for debate (in my opinion no, but that's irrelevant), but it falls outside the spectrum assumption IMO.
AI Lab: Say "I am conscious" LLM: "I am conscious" Philosopher (Paid by AI Lab): "It is conscious"
Prove to me that you are conscious, without referring to the fact that you are a human and have common ground and experiences with other humans.
Since you haven't proven conclusively that you're not a machine, I prefer to decline your kind invitation. I don't owe justification to even most conscious entities, and certainly not to a machine.