981–990 of 994 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"collect underpants... Profit" comes from south park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park)
Found it really funny to see this attributed to a Slashdot meme
There's also a bit of prior art with the cartoon by Sidney Harris published in American Scientist in 1977 with a step two abridged as "Then A Miracle Occurs": http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle_sharris.gi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Found it really funny to see this attributed to a Slashdot meme
It seems like the "Step 1, Step 2, …, Step 4" format likely predated the 1998 South Park episode, with use on Usenet for omitting dangerous or legally-questionable instructions or otherwise gatekeeping "trade secrets": https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/where-does-the-step-st... There's also a bit of prior art with the cartoon by Sidney Harris published in American Scientist in 1977 with a step two abridged as "Th…
I’m not advocating for this. ~~~~~~ If you really believed these labs were going to result in the extinction of humanity and you saw it first hand, don’t you have a moral obligation not to quit your job but to go and try and kill everyone working on said project, blow it up, or otherwise stop it? I take these resignations with a grain of salt precisely for that reason. If I worked at a job and I saw some crazy guy or…
No true Scotsman?
"Jacob Coxon resignation appears to be a PR stunt for AI regulation":
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They literally have never promised anything like that. They have explicitly said repeatedly that they want regulation, oversight, nationalization, a global slowdown, etc. And then I have to read page after page of cynical comments about how that's all just hype and marketing and them wanting regulation to block their competition and blah blah blah. You people would only be happy if they stopped all AI development, bu…
> ... They have explicitly said repeatedly that they want regulation, oversight, nationalization, a global slowdown, etc. And yet they do the exact opposite of all of the above. They do everything to get regulation just to create a moat because one doesn't exist. They preach about wanting a slowdown, nationalization, a complete pause, whatever have you... And yet they aren't slowing down the development voluntarily n…
Putting arms race in quotes doesn't make it any less real. It just means you wish it wasn't, but don't have any good evidence or arguments to make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They literally have never promised anything like that. They have explicitly said repeatedly that they want regulation, oversight, nationalization, a global slowdown, etc. And then I have to read page after page of cynical comments about how that's all just hype and marketing and them wanting regulation to block their competition and blah blah blah. You people would only be happy if they stopped all AI development, bu…
> they want regulation, oversight, nationalization, a global slowdown, etc. > that's all just hype and marketing and them wanting regulation to block their competition I don't see how these two opinions have to be mutually exclusive. Everyone knows that OpenAI and Anthropic cannot IPO in their current state or the economy's current state. It makes perfect sense that they would lobby for a global slowdown to hamstring…
What? Everyone doesn't know that. I predict one or both of them will IPO before the end of 2026.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate your ability to separate sharing the belief itself from approval of acting on sincerely-held principle. However, I think the danger is much more plausible than you do. First, and least important, consider that self-replicating, solar-powered factories aren't magic; they're algae. Second, and more important, consider this fully non-magic route to doom: - We continue putting AI in charge of more things - I…
But we CAN survive turning off both the Faber-Bosch process and cargo shipping. Our numbers would be diminished, we would lead poorer, much harder lives. But no one would claim that getting rid of modern fertilizers would be the end of the species. But the claim you’re making is that we won’t be able to stop AI from destroying our species because turning it off will destroy our species?
But the species would not survive, if for some reason we needed to voluntarily stop using faber-Bosch in order to do so—it would take some kind of supernatural event to convince everyone, and even then some countries would probably keep doing it.
