cmilton

This. When I started my career it wasn’t just “work”, I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. That passion seems to be fading, and it was put into overdrive by the lockdowns. I can see a day in the very near future of giving up in this whole “work” thing.

Agreed. I will never work a job with a >10 minute commute another day in my life. On top of the time lost, you don’t even get paid for it. It costs you time and money to go to work.

Have they won the game of capitalism by becoming a monopoly?

I don’t expect Google to act against its own will, but they should.

What should HN readers do that are forced to work within these ecosystems? Ex. Work, school.

It’s not always so easy to walk away from an entire platform. People’s entire livelihoods could be based around Google.

I don’t see any issue with Google owning some of this responsibility.

I believe the comment you are replying to is sincere.

Not everyone is “picking their own convenient opinion”. There are good people in this world that just want the best for others. I think that may be the case here.

Godspeed.

This is such a fascinating evolution of technology for me. It reminds me a lot of my experience with psychedelics. The ability to see things in a much different way. To visualize the many possible ways an image may truly present to our brains without our learned constraints. Adjusting our model weights. Its beautiful. :)

Great feedback!

Excel specifically seems to have the most attachment among our users.

> not in any meaningful numbers.

While I agree, it has to start somewhere. As a customer of both, I appreciate the competition from 1-2% per year[0] growth.

[0]https://blogs.gartner.com/craig-roth/2022/08/02/market-share...

I agree. Google Classroom exploded during the pandemic in my local school systems.

Enterprises are moving to Workspace from 365. I hope they drive each other's prices to the bottom. :)

Agreed. Align models with happiness.

The people have to wield its power. It won’t act on its own.

Who do you trust to be the filter?

And this is why the constitution is in place. To prevent the government from overstepping.

Maybe this place you dream of does not yet exist.

I, like you, wish there was such a place where everything just worked. Everyone got along. I think we all long for such a place.

In pieces.

AI is not introducing any more concern. Companies already incorporate this practice. Are you against the practice or against AI?

>So... you agree with the original post now that there's a specific risk with the current potential uses of these models

No. I do not believe the US government would allow public utilities to set prices based on social metrics bought from 3rd parties.

>"what if it was your employer" is also not "whatabouttism,"

I do not believe a public utility and my employer correlate. Maybe if I was a government employee. Even then, I don't believe the government would have the right to use that data against me either.

I have a hard time believing these underhanded tactics are overlooked and allowed.

I'm not surprised about how data is shared. I know we freely share it to companies without concern. Much of this is within our own control.

Regulations would prevent this type of abuse to power consumers in the United States. The rest of this argument is whataboutism.

Thank you for the reply.

The power companies are going to buy access to this data. This government regulated utility is going to be allowed to charge its subscribers based on social metrics.

This sounds very far fetched to me.

I asked a question for clarification.

Agreed. Existential level risks, need existential level arguments.

>I do not want my power company making decisions about me based on a large language

What data would comprise such a model?

Who would be "striking first" if "the North shows any signs of using a nuclear weapon"? Using a nuclear weapon would indeed be deemed an act of war. That sounds like self defense.

Location is going to significantly impact the number of opportunities. I love that about big cities, but I miss the peacefulness of the country.

I think most of us would like to a part of that type of relationship. Usually you can find these potential partners in communities.

Assuming that timeline, can we agree that we have some time (years?) to hash this out further before succumbing to the ideals of a select few?

>that those trends are concerning.

Which trends would you be referring to?

>it's fairly easy to see how a slightly more advanced LLM could be a destructive force if it was given an unaligned goal by a malicious actor. For example, a slightly more advanced LLM could hack into critical infrastructure killing or injuring many thousands of people.

How are you building this progression? Is there any evidence to back up this claim?

I am having a hard time discerning this from fear-mongering.

Do you have a source for the "fun" fact? What circumstances would ignite a war outside of striking first?

The Sagan standard[1] needs to be applied here.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

Possibly. How do you propose we prove otherwise?