271–280 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why won't FF and Safari be signed?
I'm sure they will, but any user extension that interferes with the DOM (as an adblocker does) will break remote attestation, so the website will reject your request.
What's really strange though is that - with all his bravado - his hypotheticals don't go further than "wife". Is he afraid of cops coming for real otherwise?
Your AI should be at least as aligned with you as your lawyer. It is 100% it's job to help you get away with it if you murdered someone. A lawyer who does less can be disbarred. There is only one sensible alignment for an AI system to which we do not confer the status of moral patient (different conversation): operator aligned .
Alright, let's run this metaphor into the ground. A lawyer's job is not to help you avoid getting caught. ChatGPT says "I can't help you hide this, escape, destroy evidence, or avoid being caught", and a lawyer would say the exact same thing; a lawyer that doesn't would be disbarred. What a lawyer will do is help you argue that you didn't murder your wife. A lawyer can give you advice on your defense strategy, tell y…
I'll take that massive improvement to the status quo before I hold out for an absolutist position like "it should act like a revolver in my hand".
I'm pragmatic like that. Point is, current proprietary megalab leadership thinks that's on mars, no way they are interested in a negotiation where "zero net decrease in my civil rights" is on the table.
Which is why we need new leadership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Procter and Gamble doesn't want to enslave humanity, it wants to make money. And the stock holders are mostly retirement funds. And billionaires control less than 4% of the world's money. (Let alone already being able to get as many servants as they want.) There's no elite group that owns everything. The top 1% own almost half the world, which is too much but also the top 1% is nearly a hundred million people.
None of what you just posted is correct. > There's no elite group that owns everything. That you are aware of. But you're not aware of much.
Yep, that's horrifying. Imagine LLMs not just denying information about, to intentionally choose a hot button example, abortions but also invisibly logging a black mark against the asker for thoughtcrime/precrime because the current ruling party has baked their ideology into law. [EDIT] Imagine subtle injection of biases into responses that support the agenda of the current ruling party and failing to include any cou…
I’m consistently amazed that people will watch what’s happening with controlling governments around the world and still advocate for surrendering more power to governments. There’s some deep cognitive dissonance where people dislike what they see governments doing, but think that their ideal imagined laws will only be used by some other imagined government that doesn’t have the challenges of real governments. It all…
These companies absolutely can not and will not take on the legal liability of serving models that give consumers instructions on cooking meth.
That being said, I agree with what he is saying, it's just that we need the memory supply chain to catch up so we can run ablated GLM models locally.
My machine, my AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my point is: any talk of "freedom" when you are a corporate slave or living on government handouts is nonsense it is all wannabe lemon-stand freedom.
IMHO, freedom is not one thing or even a value. It's a concept that applies to a lot of stuff, speech, thought, association, and tool use included. In practice, one has some freedoms but not some others. I fail to see any need to have them all to be able to discuss about one in particular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Horizon was accounting software - where is the connection to expert systems? Sounds like corporations can have bad motivations, and can make bad software - no AI required.
> Horizon was accounting software - where is the connection to expert systems? "it's functionally about the same as basically all modern business systems" > can make bad software - no AI required All AI *is software*; and by the old definition of AI, almost all modern software *is AI*.
Besides what kind of slippery slope argument is this? All software is AI, so if you do harm with software, AI is a harmful technology? Seems like a not very helpful model of the world.