catigula

>Zohar Pinhasi, 50, also known as “Zack Silver” and “Zack Green,” a U.S. and Israeli national

Will he be fleeing as is custom?

Because they're the exception, not the norm. These systems generally do what they're supposed to do, at least if implemented correctly. The key isn't efficacy; you need to be emotionally prepared to oppose privacy violations even if they're doing exactly what they advertise.

"We have you dead to rights. Check here in my fancy computer."

Just intimidation, pretty common.

Do the lies ever end? Nobody believes this.

Talk to any Jew who has left the cult; they’re huge racists foundationally, no group is comparable.

Had Israel been predicated in any way legitimately on the holocaust as their founding mythos, they certainly would not be engaging in genocide.

>The Law of Return offers citizenship to Jews wishing to immigrate, as well as non-Jews with at least one Jewish grandparent (see "Who is a Jew under the Law of Return?"), as well as their spouses

This is clearly a racial ideology.

There's a study for this, Bowling Alone.

Hint: it's diversity.

They can write brainfuck. I said less fluency.

You're probably doing something the LLM has less fluency with.

I'm trying to be nice here, but yes, it's a racial nationalist policy. We don't have many of those countries left in the world.

That country has long been known as a haven for American pedophiles/criminals who end up fleeing the country.

Is this statement more or less true than it was in 2023?

It takes one second of critical thinking to falsify this claim.

Any anthropic observation requires merely a satisficing condition, which generally means that most requisite conditions are not optimal, including consciousness :)

Interesting. I don't play either LoL or retail WoW, but I am a historical WoW player.

I'm a Pro user and I do not have it. Seems scuffed.

Weird how everyone is insane except for you.

So, something with the potential to kill all humans isn’t notable to you?

What does Geoff Hinton have to gain?

This is a conspiracy theory FYI.

Looking forward to your thesis where you’ve solved perpetual superintelligence alignment.

Is Nobel laureate Geoff Hinton marketing?

This is a strawman attack, aside from simply being an inaccurate claim. The notion that AI poses no danger and all claims to the contrary are IPO manipulations requires extensive conspiratorial thinking.

You don’t see how or why AI systems could be extremely dangerous, despite literally all experts converging towards a consensus that they are?

Yeah, you might get away with a singular 'wrt' with some consternation, but two?

Why wouldn't they? We have no consumer protections so this type of thing is happening everywhere all the time on every level of society.

People with personality disorders, depression, anxiety, etc. all algorithmically being plied for attention. It's disgusting and nobody is doing anything about it, which will eventually erode buy-in in the system until someone is willing to let it all go without an adversary even firing a shot.

You don’t see a problem with LLMs in wet labs doing biology work?

This work seems directly dangerous to me?

I made an argument of inference that underpins all philosophy.

You made an argument to solipsism, which historically means you aren't worth discussing philosophy with.

I’m not interested in having conversations with people who are bad-faith, deliberately or indiliberately obtuse or otherwise non-responsive to logic.

You’re mistaking what is evident from what is philosophically knowable.

It isn’t knowable to you that I am conscious.

However, it is evident.

I basically accepted that LLMs could not possibly be conscious when a simple reductio was posed:

“My dog is zero percent persuasive regarding its conscious experience. However, it’s evident that my dog has conscious experience.”

It’s obvious that there’s no link between persuasion of consciousness and consciousness. I could write a story with a character, Dumbledore, that does everything in his power to persuade you that he’s a conscious entity.

He’s still just a character.

I largely agree that this claim is likely correct, but as far as I understand the science, this specific claim;

>They do not have innate preferences or underlying motivations

Is incorrect unless you’re being extremely pedantic in an intellectually unhelpful way.