Live data from Hacker News

On AI regulation and messaging

twitter.com

571–572 of 572 posts

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#571
post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not asking me, but I want to say that there is nothing Anthropic or any other AI company can do to make me trust them other than to dissolve and give up their ambitions and do something else. Then maybe, after seeing genuine contrition and humility I would trust them to do something else. But likely not. After all they've done, they should accept that a permanent loss of trust is a reasonable consequence. They…

You are following the logic to its natural conclusion and I find it infinitely better for the discourse when it’s spelled out like this vs vaguely pointing to a set of other concerns without concrete proposals!

My only concern with respect to discourse is that consent be not treated as a commodity that must be offered for a price, as if we were hostage to cancer and willing to trade anything, including our freedom, dignity, and integrity to be free of it.

Thiel et al. have described technological change as a means of forcing unilateral changes on an unwilling public. There is no basis for trust unless there exists a justice system that can appropriately discipline and restrain such people and their coconspirators, and force them to abandon their plans to inflict unwanted conditions on masses of people.

Re: On AI regulation and messaging

#572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Donald Trump still maintains a 39% approval rating among the electorate. It turns out that a lot of people are indeed quite stupid. No. It's partisanship and polarization, which has little to do with intelligence. But there's one thing that I know is stupid: assuming the reason opposite pole doesn't do what you think they should is because they're full of stupids.

No, it has everything to do with intelligence. What you are saying is correct in the context of traditional liberal/conservative axes of debate, but that's no longer the basis for discussion. Liberal or conservative, left or right, authoritarian or libertarian, it doesn't matter: if you (still) think Trump is the right man for the job, then you are either a criminal or other subversive agent, a glassy-eyed cultist, o…

> ...if you (still) think Trump is the right man for the job, then you are either a criminal or other subversive agent, a glassy-eyed cultist, or stupid.

No. I personally don't like Trump, and looking forward to the day he's gone, but:

1. Thinking of your opponents are stupid (or some kind of cartoon villain) is itself a really stupid attitude to take. It might feel righteous, but it blinds you. Some of them may actually be literally stupid, but there's no value in even thinking about them.

Looked at objectively, there's also lot of stupid on all sides. See: much of the Democrats'/progressives' reaction to Trump.

2. Approval is complicated. It's not a choice made in a vacuum. American politics nowadays is (for many people) a choice between the best of bad options. Partisanship exacerbates it, because it makes many of the alternatives seem even more loathsome.

3. Not everyone is a news junkie, and expressing approval of Trump (for instance), may not be even meant to be an evaluation of his job performance.

4. etc.

Post reply on HN