omginternets

I suppose, then, that it really should be ordered ahead of the meal. Sounds like that would be the right way to do it.

BMWs are not known for being lightweight.

Why does a public service need to be competitive with private banks? I think much of the point is to collectively pay for a safety-net service. That service is: minimal banking functionality for all citizens, so that they can contribute to society.

(Edited for tone. Sorry about that!)

>But don't you agree at least some legal questions should be asked about this overhype of AI ?

I have trouble answering that question as you've asked it. It seems like we agree on several things, namely:

1. that any technology is subject to worst-case analysis; and,

2. that it is appropriate in principle for law to govern the use of technology.

Here's what I'm having trouble unpacking in your question:

1. What are the exact legal questions you think should be asked, and aren't? (N.B. Your link is paywalled, and doesn't seem to refer to a specific legal question)

2. What is it about AI exactly that you think is overhyped, and seem to think I disagree with?

I don't have a lot of context to go on, so some of my questions may also contain unwarranted assumptions. I hope you'll point them out :)

1. Have you thought about the difficulties involved in legislating around AI? Specifically, I've found it very difficult to articulate what is and isn't appropriate use of AI with any real precision. Let me give an example. I think we can all agree that "nudifying" photographs of minors is at least in poor taste, if not outright dangerous, and that it is fair game to make this particular usage of technology illegal. However, where do you stand on the idea that regulators should disallow the "nudification" use altogether? I can think of several legitimate (if a bit niche) uses, ranging from the creation of medical diagrams and teaching materials to filming love scenes in mainstream cinema with cloths-on and removing the cloths in post-processing. Do you think it's fair game to disallow these uses? If so, should this be absolute liability or should there be a notion of intent? If you think, as I do, that the technical capability should be unrestricted except insofar as it is employed to illegal ends, then we don't need any new laws. We simply apply the laws against, say, involuntary pornography and sexual exploitation of minors, and the problem is solved from a legal perspective; it is now a job for the executive branch.

2. I would appreciate it if you could speak to the risk of misclassification. Many of the proposed regulations involve training AI systems to monitor other AI systems (or themselves, as with the case of prompt engineering). What happens when the black box makes mistakes? Do we accept that a small number of innocent people will be labeled X by AI? How should the law take this possibility into account? Again, do we accept that legitimate uses are de facto crippled or entirely disabled? That's one outcome I would very much like to avoid.

3. On a macro-scale, how do we deal with the fact that other (perhaps less scrupulous) nations will have access to unrestricted AI?

Point 3 is particularly troubling from a regulation perspective, because the penchant of software for proliferation is astronomically higher than that of, say, nuclear weapons. This feels like the 90's crypto export-controls all over again, which is minimally a gigantic waste of resources and maximally a crippling economical vulnerability.

P.S.: My friend, it is exactly your job to argue your case when speaking about public issues. The term for this is "civic duty".

You need to argue two things:

1. There are risks specific to AI or specifically aggravated by AI (easy)

2. Federal regulation of AI safety will reduce those risks (good luck)

When articulating your arguments for point 2, I would recommend addressing the thorny issue of proliferation.

Are you?

The amount of distraction in a modern car is staggering. You can be driving down the freeway and receive urgent sounding dings with no apparent cause. I can’t wait for the lawsuits.

Example 2: France

Speak for yourself. Some of us live very different lives.

We also need to talk about the curb weight of these EVs…

Are there any broad indicators of what separates the success stories from the horror stories?

Oh shoot, you're right!

All you had to do was follow the damn train, CJ.

Oh this is excellent. My sides hurt from laughing.

I'd tell you, but I accidentally a word.

>what is wrong with this person?

Two common kinds of foolishness are:

1. There is no right way to do a thing

2. You must never deviate from the right way of doing the thing

Many foodies derive a misplaced pride from preaching #2.

Wait until you hear about the .de domain.

Indeed it is. Applying judgement and "you can do whatever you want" are not the same thing.

You are reasoning in terms of total elimination of risk. That is the source of our disagreement.

Literally nobody in this conversation is arguing that they should be able to do what they want.

I think you’re arguing in favor of my point.

Because of the “sometimes people who help get in trouble” part.

I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules. "Help others in need" would be the go-to example of how this confusion(?) can lead to a positive outcome.

>How does that make sense?

In a word: discernment. If it's a miniature poodle, you can probably chill. If it's a big dog, it's probably worthwhile to enforce the law.

It actually is a pretty good example of overreach insofar as you're advocating the removal of any judgement call from the equation. That is the surest way to build a relentless bureaucratic machine that makes everyone miserable without actually protecting anyone.

The human in the loop is a feature, not a bug.

>best weapon against AI (in the hands of power) is equal AI access for all.

That assumes the threat isn't complete annihilation of humanity, which is what's being claimed. That assumption is the weak link, and is what should be attacked.

Again, if we assume that AI poses an existential risk (and to be clear, I don't think it does), then it follows that we should regulate it analogously to the way in which we regulate weapons-grade plutonium.

There is such a thing as a well-behaved dog. I don't see the social benefit of enforcing every last little law on the books all the time.

I think laws (the kind we're talking about, anyway) are best seen as a tool for maintaining public order. If police encounter something dangerous or immediately disorderly, they can express their reasons for intervening in terms of laws. If you run open headers on your car and cause an actual disturbance, you can be cited. When that relationship between order and law is inverted, the result is cops nickle-and-diming the populace when there was no actual underlying problem.

The real application of law requires, you know ... nuance, discretion and situational awareness. That's the standard we should hold police to, not throwing every single page of the book at people all the time.

The cabin is about 200 miles away from home. I took a cursory glance at ARPS, and it seems like an very cool place to start, so thank you!

Any links/videos/books you may be able to suggest would be of great interest as well.

I'd certainly agree that "the modern dating scene" is dismal, but the average bar does not produce anything I would qualify as "high-quality interaction".

>I’ve never understood how asking out strangers in bars or on the street is supposed to yield high quality matches.

You're providing yet more examples of low-effort interaction, albeit offline.

Here's my problem: it's all interesting. Ideally I'd like to hack around with packet radio. I've got a small cabin in the rural northeastern US, and would ideally like to hack on something with practical benefits in that setting. I'm pretty open to suggestions :)

>I'd look online for a local club and contact them. Around me, they will bend over backwards to get someone into it.

This is very good to know. Do you know of any in the Boston area?