jjj123

The productivity gains would need to be shared by all to get that world, not owned by a couple for-profit entities.

The comment you’re replying to doesn’t anthropomorphize meta. “Morals at Meta” refers to the morals of the people that work at meta.

I don’t get it, are you saying that because the LLM is recycling human emotions that we should anthropomorphize it?

The reason people get fussy over anthropomorphizing AI is precisely because it seems very human superficially. We agree with you that it’s pulling from real human emotion in its training data. But the output is not human, even if the input was. That’s the whole trap of it.

If all people had to have gps trackers installed on their cars and that data was easily accessible to cops, yeah I would demand they be outlawed.

You asked where the danger was, the response told you that disrupting the status quo can be dangerous.

Even if his 1T is speculative and undeserved he still has extreme power from that wealth. And there’s no indication that the bottom will fall out any time soon, so I think the lamenting is justified.

Because I believe we all deserve to have a relatively equal say in how society should function, and the existence of trillionaires is antithetical to that.

Bizarre comment. OP didn’t say that they were worried or that AI is stupid. Only that it’s boring to hear someone talk about what their AI made.

But in this case what does a country lose by blocking any and all data centers in its borders? A few ms latency?

Wait, why does the Turing test invalidate the mechanistic argument against LLMs? Isn’t it possible the Turing test isn’t sufficient to measure intelligence?

The end of the article mentions it. Some people are not purely rational decision makers, some people are altruists who know others are not purely rational, etc.

By choosing red you will kill some people.

Where did I say there was no difference at all? I just said the example you gave was also evil.

Seems appropriate for satirists to do a petty attack on a bad man. That’s kind of the whole thing, isn’t it?

I’d rather it be collective action that produces real change, but humor is cathartic so I’ll take it.

Kind of a strange example, because yeah I do think it’s evil to inflict your aesthetic preference on everyone’s bodies without consent.

> I do wonder how many would detransition if it wasn’t too embarrassing for them

Well I wonder how many would transition in the first place if the culture (and law) allowed for gender fluidity without judgement or violence.

Also: not speaking for all queer people here, but if a person wants to detransition because they changed their mind/feel differently as they age/whatever the fuck reason, that’s fine!

I’m curious if after reading the dozen or so replies you’ve changed your opinion here, at least a little?

For the record, I am also a user who scrolls up often while reading, so I find the header thing more frustrating than useful.

I think it’s fine if your Ring camera is only pointing at your property. If it’s pointing into a public spaces, then yeah I think you are doing something bad and you should be shamed for doing it.

Where in the parent comment do you see them saying they are objectively “right”?

I read it as honestly subjective: “I see morality this way, you see it another way. If you act in a way that my morality deems evil, I will judge you for it regardless of how it fits into your belief system.”

That seems non-contradictory to me.

Is your point here that people who do wrong always or usually know they’re doing something wrong? If it is, I disagree. Most things I consider morally abhorrent are justifiable under some morality system. And I think for most humans, it’s easier to believe you’re one of the good guys than one of the bad guys.

As someone who works in these orgs, only a small fraction are about user experience metrics. 90+% are extracting more short term value with unknown second order effects on usability.

I agree, but I think the broader point here is that any automated system is a way to offload accountability. And it will be used for that without a doubt no matter how “good” the officers or human processes are.

So it’s still reasonable to be skeptical of (or outright reject) the use of the technology in systems that can ruin or end people’s lives.

Fair point! I was conflating source-available and open source.

I guess you cannot limit based on user or use case, but you can set rules on attribution and copyleft in OSS, both of which aren’t respected by AI. Still seems different than a no strings attached gift.

“My million+ open source LOC were always intended as a gift to the world”

That’s great for John, but not everyone’s open source projects are meant as a gift to the world for anyone and everyone to use. That he cannot understand that others think differently than him is disappointing.

I heard a podcast ad for an AI toy once that said “your child and [the toy] will be having conversations you could never imagine”.

Truly baffling marketing, but I guess there are some parents that don’t realize the unpredictability of AI is what makes it so dangerous as a toy.

Here are a handful of things that “the system” could change that would have helped the author:

- free or greatly reduced cost of higher education

- replacing means-tested programs like Medicaid with universal versions. Medicare for all, for example, where you don’t have to jump through hoops or even opt in, is better than the dehumanizing system we have in place today. Also removes the barrier to slightly improving one’s life, since you won’t lose your aid after getting a 10% raise or w/e.

- cheaper housing, or public housing (god forbid!)

These are not pipe dreams, these are all things other civilized countries have. I don’t want to live in a world where you have to be either lucky or extraordinary to live a secure, modest life.

What does “there are ripped men in prison” have to do with anything? Those men have intrinsic motivation for working out, but not everyone does, that’s kind of my whole point here.

>> how do you make someone do a thing they don’t want to do?

You make it part of the fabric of daily life. If it’s easier to walk than it is to take a car, more people will walk. Of course there will be those who cannot or refuse to, and that’s okay, but systemic changes can lift everyone up on average.

That requires intrinsic motivation, which is part of OPs point. If you build a walkable/bikeable city, you raise the exercise floor for everyone.

The comforts are digital. TikTok, YouTube, Twitch, Instagram, video games.

The people horrified at news stories like this are not the same people working in defense tech.

At least, I’ve never met someone who works in war tech who really cares. They either don’t think about it or they believe the propaganda and think they’re making the world safer. Both are bad but neither seems hypocritical to me.

Woah there… likely neither? I was curious too, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this “zero sugar but not actually” label before in stores.