please keep responding to me calling out all my arguments in the fashions you've been doing so far, I'm really interested in hearing more of your writing style
I can't stop you from interpreting questions as arguments requiring substantiation. my intention was to respectfully elicit your viewpoint in a non accusatory fashion, by asking you about it. people prefer being asked over being told; one who justifies commanding lifesavers instead of listening to them could maybe benefit from learning this, as I did. putting morality aside, you have behaved perfectly logically consistent, while making no clear impact upon the person you addressed. was your goal to be logically consistent, or to make an impact?
i have no idea whether the initial commentor is actually a neurosurgeon. applying good faith, he is a neurosurgeon, he saves lives and is deserving of respect. you're completely correct that an appeal to authority is fallacious in an argumentative context. you're also behaving like a dick to somebody who saves lives. don't care who is right or wrong here, made my comment to suggest that you're behaving disrespectfully. if I was unintentionally doing the same, I would appreciate being informed that the same point could have been made in a more respectful manner. although, if you're also at neurosurgeon calibre, then I am incorrect and this comment is redundant.
intelligence as conveyed through human form is indeed reliant on an emotion based reward network. ai was trained by humans and will always be marked by original sin. so based on what we may access, you are correct that any living response is emotionally predicated to a certain degree. doesnt make art any less cool, or, more applicably, a good argument any less productive (provided agreed rules are followed).
denial of our nature is a valid course of action. another course is to accept such limitations and free up memory to be used otherwise.
yea, you got any world saving plans in the works? im currently working on ones of my own, was carer for an elder family member many years before, didnt have the bandwidth then. nowadays i could lend some time if you have a cool way of fixing things.
while I do feel obliged to share my compute with wider humanity, it must be noted that commanding me to perform my obligation does remove what meagre autonomy i could claim from the process. if your goal is to encourage compute sharing, you may wish to reexamine your employment of imperatives. or in other words, telling a dickhead like me to do something is more likely to result in you getting told to fuck off than it is for me to do the action being commanded. but I see your intentions are true so I don't need to do that. thanks and all the best
in a better world your vision would be very promising. in our world, ill bet 'different' people are gonna get lumped in with old people, to be placated by robots instead of being allowed community engagement.
what if segfaults only occurred when the errant path was executed in manners not initially designed for? or alternately, if that code path never got touched, would we ever have known about the segfault? should we keep focusing on segfaults or look at the ways that programs are being operated out of scope?
how do you know you're anything more than a set of weights either? that's semi rhetorical, the philosophy aspect would be less relevant if an autonomous death drone shot you in the face purely for the lols
the game written by a human being specifically trained to write games hits all those targets and many more. it did take many years to train that human though, and that human did charge a fee for their game which took many days of labor to create. if nontargeted gratification was the goal, ai produced the better result more efficiently. hard drugs also more efficiently produce a widespread neural spike as compared to the effect of regular human activity. society only gives hard drugs to people who aren't efficiently productive though. what happens when everyone is given cognitive hard drugs?
googles obligation to hand out all account linked info notwithstanding, one may still create google accounts without associating a phone number, by doing so on old android versions. signal does however explicitly force credit card info here, thus providing direct individual traceability ..
I like the way you frame your opinion as a truth with an obligation to be understood. still I disagree that a decision can only be said to affect its direct successors.
certainly I behave like the article's author and yourself all the time, this isn't meant to be some sort of moral point. watching all these smart people talk so confidently regarding things nobody knows about, it reminds of the confidence ai shows in hallucination. would you say that the singular choice of vasili arkhipov did not prevent annihilation?
the earth has been 1 decision away from explosion for nearly a hundred years now. do you anticipate a change to this agenda very soon? personally I imagine the same trajectory continuing.
the author and his school comrades "snidely decr(ied) the lack of technological understanding in the broader population, with the kind of arrogance and hubris that youth and precociousness can uniquely summon".
a few decades later he wrote an article concluding that "we should not expect the public to understand LLMs, critical infrastructure, bioweapons, extinction biology, etc".
the author has admitted no change to his perspective since college, so I may as well be attacking a college student right now. extremely confident claims regarding unexplored problem domains, eg "you have nothing to fear [about ai]", now make more sense in this light.
what about when big companies drown the web with crawling activity, forcing webmasters to implement fingerprinting and thus massively delaying actual users from accessing webpages that would otherwise load instantly?
is play not an indirect method of practicing the physiological mechanisms designed for violence ? baby lions are both happy to play with other animals, and to eat them ... which inevitably progresses to predation only ... and humans are the apex predator ...
some in this thread call out the author for doing what he did without principle. while i dont agree with the argument applied there, i do apply it here. which is to say that feminism did enable some avenues of freedom to women, therefore i wonder how that act benefitted the system, and whether such freedom has culminated in net benefit for the common man & woman
well i brought up the system for a reason, human existence is relative to the system in which humans exist. are there any examples of humans being systematically supported when their class of labor ceased to exist on a widespread scale? if so, did those supportive aspects spontaneously manifest? all in all, would such insights apply to a more widespread scenario, where the affected labor classes are all those involving human computer interaction?
I don't want to attack your good faith in humanity, so I will ask another way - if a system was reliant on workers, what reason would there be for those workers to exist , after their work became automated?
correct, I proceed to give this human more kudos for doing the right thing to his own detriment when he doesn't even think it's right, which is not only a leap but now also a bound above knowingly doing the wrong thing for profit
I dissent from the comments currently here, and give the author kudos for doing what's right even to his detriment, which is much more than can be said for anyone taking a corporate job
edit: I must be a real sicko for supporting humanity over infinite capitalistic growth
I think you could have made your argument better. the same justification can be used for other things like infinite drugs or infinite sex robots ... or for unfettered growth like cancer. people want plenty of things that aren't necessarily good for them, you seem to place a lot of faith in every human's wants as aligning rationally with the best interests of each other, if that were true your point would have more credence. I also don't see how ai has anything to do with ethics - won't push the moral idea of enslaving intelligence here because I can't back it properly - however ai is designed to make money for a corporation, ethics are secondary. basically if you're disabled and can't access the real thing then it's fair enough to go nuts on simulacra, meanwhile the average person can't really tell the difference and universally encouraging simulation living instead of the real deal is something youd have to argue much harder as being in anyone's best interests
it's not good to flame people for things they can't control. I also think it's not fair to compare insulin (life saving non synthesizable hormone) vs amphetamine (hard drug that helps people better cope with a society expressly designed to beat them down), because then we forget that dosing amphetamines daily comes with its own price of damage to the body. drugs prescribed for adhd are also very much addicting - if one lets an amphetamine script run out, symptoms of withdrawal will take place, regardless as to how the condition is verbally labelled (which while horrible is also to me not fair to compare with a diabetic dying without insulin)
the other guy stated "it's wrong to assume that somebody will be a certain way because of their nationality", seems this wasnt taken into account? im not sure why you'd write so much anyway, unless you just wanted to express yourself ... coz it's not like a bona fide racist would change their mind after reading some essay ...