infinite_spin

I think it's similar to adding a note to a book, and then removing that note, leaving you with a the original book. That scenario doesn't violate copyright law as far as I'm aware.

This seems like rage bait. You could just as easily make the claim that all soldiers, regardless of their support role, could refuse orders long before they were put in a position that risks their own safety, knowing that in all cases their role would be to support the killing of others.

> By the time the current build up is done which will take years, Ukraine will not be a sovereign nation at its current rate. For Russia's perspective, a regime change is their ultimate goal, not territory. Once the corridor is secure they are likely to turn to Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania.

All the more reason for the EU to continue supplying Ukraine.

The systems we have in place kill people. Aiming to blame just one point of failure, in a complex network of systems, is a failure itself

glad you posted this.

> "Why are you now placing these children on the ground face into the concrete? It's hot! In front of all of us? Screaming at them. They are telling you they are hurt," witness Jenni Wurtz said.

I cannot believe LE will use this technology within ethical bounds, since they are willing to force a very young child onto the asphalt of a hot parking lot, who cannot possibly have posed a risk to their safety.

> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

all of the above. the harness is important when you want an agentic process, the model is important when you want tuning. it's a lot like how nuclear research often requires lab equipment, a corpus of knowledge, and access to materials (e.g. isotopes). all of that is restricted in an effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

I kept asking myself "what does a library that provides css styling have to do with the Hugging Face intrusion".

Excel is more durable than a human can be, but I can't say it's "better" than a human within the context of "better" meaning the capacity to be truthful. An excel sheet is a source of truth, but the quality of that truth is not something excel imparts.

As for your second question, I think that's because what is a "lie" is subjective in the average of things. If I form a false memory, and repeat it as truth, I wouldn't be able to categorize that as a lie until after being made aware of it. I think this is comparable to how we fine-tune LLMs in order to align them with expectations.

The comparison I provided is between how an LLM functions and one part of how a brain functions. It's not an equivalence, I did not say they are "the same". You made the claim that these systems "aren't remotely comparable", and when faced with a clear comparison, you claim "deep misunderstanding".. Have you any arguments to make, or is this going to devolve into more statements that both mischaracterize and muddy the water?

What do I look like, an LLM? ... don't answer that.

> "To Serve and Protect," is a phrase made famous by the Los Angeles Police De­partment and adopted, in various forms, by law enforcement agencies across the United States.

https://www.policemag.com/articles/to-serve-and-protect-v2

> In February 1955, the Los Angeles Police Department, through the pages of the internally produced BEAT magazine, conducted a contest for a motto for the police academy. The conditions of the contest stated that: “The motto should be one that in a few words would express some or all the ideals to which the Los Angeles police service is dedicated. It is possible that the winning motto might someday be adopted as the official motto of the Department.”

> The winning entry was the motto, “To Protect and to Serve” submitted by Officer Joseph S. Dorobek.

> On November 4, 1963, the Los Angeles City Council passed the necessary ordinance and the credo has now been placed alongside the City Seal on the Department’s patrol cars.

https://www.lapdonline.org/lapd-motto/

I don't know what film you're referring to, but it's been a motto since the 50's, and made official since the 60's.

> An LLM isn't human. > Why is it not reasonable to expect it to adhere to rules better than a human does?

It seems unreasonable to expect a system that you say isn't human, which I don't disagree with, to behave "better" than the thing you say it isn't.

In one breath you invite comparison, while at the same time you seem to be denying that same comparison.

> It seems wild to me that folks are shrugging their shoulders at that.

I'm not shrugging my shoulders simply by providing explanations, I would ask that you stop using such rhetoric.

> What’s the line?

Evidence, even when downplayed or ignored, is still evidence.

> aren't remotely comparable to the way humans think and act

Neural networks in machine learning/AI are comparable to neural networks in human brains. What made you think they aren't?

Hang on, I need to create a Twitter account so I can ask Grok

I've been having issues with it using unreasonable timeouts for tasks that should have failed within minutes, not hours.

Nothing in your response refutes anything I've said/asked.

Is that how humans work? even if I give explicit instructions not to lie, a human might still lie. To quote a person you might know "it's not a difficult concept!"

Claude: "do I dream of electric sheep?"

I have the same question. The code doesn't seem to have anything that would cause an LLM to engage with it more than the average geocities website.

My phone wasn't designed to stalk other people. These systems are.

It's hard to gauge the sincerity of these beliefs, and even harder to tell if you've actually tested these beliefs against the reality of mass surveillance, especially when it's been used to arrest and stalk innocent people.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/georgia-cops-keep-get...

https://cambridgeanalytica.org/surveillance-privacy/police-f...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/the-cop-investigating-a...

You asked a question about whether you can do something, not whether I found the behavior moral. I'm not interested in moral debates.

The Mona Lisa's painter isn't alive, they can't sue, and this act doesn't apply to printed books. You're expanding the hypothetical to say "also you're under a specific set of laws that forbid exactly the thing I questioned".. that's moving the goalpost.

of the rare books, which was the rarest of them all? What year was it published?

I think they are in the legal sense of right, and I think they only discarded the remains of these dissected books because previous rulings (e.g. archive.org's lending practices of digital copies of books they physically owned) gave rise to a situation where destruction bore less legal risk. As for the moral case, I don't have much to say on that, we all have our own lines in that sand.

If you purchased the Mona Lisa (or some rare book), in this hypothetical, you can burn it.

> Barrett's Traditional Fairy Tales (2021)

How is a book from 2021 considered rare in this context? There's almost certainly a digital copy of it in existence prior to Anthropic purchasing a print edition.

that makes a lot more sense, appreciate it!