notfed

"Oops, we were hacked, hehe, guess we'll have to shutdown. Oh and our CEO will be moving to another country."

"Trust" is a pretty compelling reason.

That wasn't a sample though, it was a hypothesis. (And it brings the question: do cages help?)

Let's say I have a few chickens in my backyard that don't have bird flu, and we (myself or my chickens) never come into contact with any other chickens.

Aren't we safe? If not, what are the possible vectors? Is it from random birds flying in my yard? My visits to grocery stores?

This is a pretty ideal response by Google. Of course they'll be criticized no matter how they handle this.

On the contrary, I'd argue that migraines are probably much more common than diagnosed, rather than the other way around. Migraines, much like seizures, vary in both symptoms and severity.

At the risk of discounting a genuine anecdote, I feel inclined to point out that the grandparent and parent post exactly model a very trendy type of spam that I've noticed appearing in YouTube comment sections at an ever-growing rate; especially in self-help and financial-advice areas.

I guess it's impossible to prove whether someone's anecdote is genuine or not. I'd at least suggest people try visiting a YouTube financial advice video, read the comments, and you'll see this pattern like every ten comments.

So you're saying consciousness is bullshit? Because the point is that we don't know how to observe the difference between something that is conscious and something that isn't.

> That can all be harvested.

Can it? How?

Yes, exactly!

The motive of people to cheer any team on is, generally, tribalism.

I desperately wish to be bored. (Context: I have a job)

To support the grand-post but reword it: we're on the verge of AI becoming a "great creativity equalizer". It used to be that each individual had a "skill level" on a scale from 0-100 for each practice, where very few people were above level 60. But now everyone can be a level 60+ artist, if they want to be. This lower limit will keep rising and, at a certain point (and maybe were talking 1000 years) it will be hard for anyone to differentiate any everyday media from human- vs AI-generated.

Maybe equality is good? For utilities like locomotion, that sounds great. But for creativity?

I think what will happen is a later generation will grow up bombarded by level-100 art and music. I guess that sounds net positive...right?

As a musician, I can tell you one thing: part of what gives me drive to make music is knowing that what I'm creating is a scarce resource. (For example, if I realize one of my songs sounds like another existing song, it stops sounding good to me.) If it comes that AI can generate new songs for me, all of that value I assign to creating music is lost.

> This reads like someone who doesn't have a solid understanding of the underpinnings at generative AI.

They're talking about the future, though. You are correct that they, nor you or I, have a solid understanding of technology in the future.

> "Undefined behavior" is not a bug. It's something that isn't specified by an ISO standard.

An ISO standard? According to who, ISO?

That's called insider trading.

We're going through a "rewrite the gov as microservices" phase.

And the fisherman definitely isn't controlling for selection bias.

I really disagree with the premise that Kamala acted "too progressive"...it sounds a little bit ridiculous to even say. The Trump campaign effectively made a mountain out of a molehill, and if it weren't for this molehill, he would have used another, or fabricated one.

Yeah this is really not the right article to complain about such a thing lol

I struggle to connect what's described in this article to preventing racism. Care to explain?

You're comparing two completely unrelated things and phrasing it as if we have to choose one or the other.

If your aim is to criticize the risk of AI, you'll have plenty of supporters here. Adding web3 to the conversation is unnecessary and you're going to get called out for arguing a false dichotomy.

Those are subjective clarifications, and so will differ between each person. And models are pre-trained to recognize these classifications.

Since you mentioned war, I'm reminded of Black Mirror episode "Men Against Fire", where an army of soldiers have eye implants that cause them to visually see enemy soldiers as unsightly. (My point being this is effectively what Facebook can do.)

Seems antithetical to Zuckerberg's recent "More Speech and Fewer Mistakes" announcement.

Yes, which makes this claim more extraordinary. (And to be fair, I don't think there's extraordinary evidence presented here.)

To be fair, the screenshots are data points, but more would be needed to support the generalization being made.

> Schrödinger (NASDAQ: $SDGR) uses quantum mechanics to design new medicines and materials. Schrödinger is also a key AI winner.

So like Theranos? But with all the latest marketing buzzwords.

I don't think it's crazy to suspect that Ulbricht knows a password or two and cut a deal here.

"The US won because <wild uncited guess about the future>."