201–210 of 499 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would also most certainly have a dead man's switch releasing everything I know. I would have given it to an attorney along with a sworn deposition.
Why would you give it to anyone? That’s not how a dead man’s switch works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's very naive to believe in 'European press'. To get the idea check Ukrainian war coverage. What you'll see first is how single sided it is. This is such a wild take from my POV, a person in the EU. Have you considered the possibility that the nearest imperialist power beginning to violently invade Europe again is likely to trigger a common reaction? This is one of those rare cases in modern history where there i…
>This is one of those rare cases in modern history where there is a clear right vs. wrong. There is no right or wrong in politics.
It is wrong to kill or perform any violence or harm against children in any war context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being one of 12+ witnesses in a lawsuit where the facts are hardly in dispute is not the same as being a whistleblower. The key questions in this lawsuit are not and never were going to come down to insider information—OpenAI does not dispute that they trained on copyrighted material, they dispute that it was illegal for them to do so.
It seems like it would matter if they internally believed/discussed it being illegal for them to do so, but then did it anyway and publicly said they felt they were in the clear.
I wonder who called to ask about his well-being. The Boeing guy killed himself, this guy apparently killed himself. The pattern of David vs Goliath, where David kills himself, is almost becoming a pattern.
When David is just a nobody, and Goliath has all of the legal and PR resources in the world, Goliath doesn't even have to swing a punch. Goliath can just drive them crazy with social and legal pressure. Also, David might have been a bit of a decision-making outlier to begin with, being the kind of person who decides going up against Goliath is a good idea.
How would one protect themselves from something like this? Avoid all 'algorithmically' generated data sources, AdBlock, VPN, don't log in anywhere?
Given the outcomes of the Facebook mood experiments and how I've seen people put together very targeted ads, I'm wondering whether it's possible to induce someone (who's already under a lot of pressure) to commit suicide simply via a targeted information campaign. I'm speculating less on what happened here, and more on the general "yes that would be possible" situation. How would one protect themselves from something…
Anyone who's a whistleblower should compile key docs and put it in a "dead man's switch" service that releases your testimony/docs to multiple news agencies in the event of your untimely demise. The company you're whistle blowing against and their major shareholders should know this exists. Also, regularly post public video attesting to you current mental state.
> multiple news agencies In the case of the US, you cannot make your selection wide enough. For optimal security, get it to both local news organizations and serious European press agencies. The US news media do not have independent editorial boards. Several titles are actually from the same house. Corporate ownership, and professionals going to the dark side via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_capture are just s…
When WSJ broke the Elizabeth Holmes story, much ink was spilled showing how no European paper would take on a corporation strong government support.
Looking at Europe, governments first instinct is to protect national favorites.
European whistleblowers are likely to face defamation suits, something thankfully difficult in America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, and to me it's one of the reasons it's hard to argue that generative AI violates copyright. At least in the US, a derivative work is a creative (i.e. copyrightable) work in its own right. Neither AI models nor their output meet that bar, so it's not clear what the infringing derivative work could be.
Piracy generates works that are neither derivative nor wholly copies (e.g. pre-cracked software). They are not considered creative works in the current framework. They are however, considered to be infringing.
My point is that with LLM outputs that's not true - according to the copyright office they are not themselves expressive content, so it's not obvious how they could infringe on (i.e. contain the expressive content of) other works.
Given the outcomes of the Facebook mood experiments and how I've seen people put together very targeted ads, I'm wondering whether it's possible to induce someone (who's already under a lot of pressure) to commit suicide simply via a targeted information campaign. I'm speculating less on what happened here, and more on the general "yes that would be possible" situation. How would one protect themselves from something…
I don't know how much this is embellished, but I'd say it's not too hard.
for defence, as others have said, walk away from the phone. spend time with friends.
I personally swear out loud followed by the name of the company whenever I see a YouTube advert, I hope it helps me avoid making the choices they want me to.