There are plenty of underlying problems to discuss. Adam Conover mentions chatbots encouraging suicide and murder. Guess who doesn’t: the “experts and expert leaders.” The ones who are happy to repeat the rhetoric that is either untrue, highly theoretical, or conveniently unproven.
Right. The article is about loss of contracts, it seems more than reasonable to include a perfunctory explanation about how those contracts came about to begin with.
Remember that if you sign up for Disney+, you waive the right to sue them if they kill you at one of their restaurants.
I think there is something more interesting going on in the Jacob Coxon story because it’s [the] phrase “everyone at anthropic believes that AI is an existential risk”… Every organization has to instill some kind of beliefs among its members in order to do the work it does, right? Everybody at Goldman Sachs believes the free market is great, capitalism is the best system, and that they are the wealth creators who deserve big bonuses. Everyone in the Mormon church believes they should all tithe 10% of their income, and that they each get a special planet when they die. And everyone who worked at Philip Morris in the 80s believed that cigarettes tasted great and did not cause any of that nasty cancer. There’s Upton Sinclair quote, “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Well, the opposite is also true. It’s guaranteed that someone will believe something if their salary depends on them believing it.
Now, let’s just grant that all the people in these organizations definitely know things about finance and Mormonism and cigarettes and AI that you might not know because they are insiders and you are not. They have access to information and experiences that you do not have. And that might even make it a little bit difficult for you to win an argument with them. But arguing with their belief – trying to figure out whether or not its truth value is true or false – is not the only way to take a skeptical attitude towards it. We can also ask, what work is the belief doing for them. What does the thing that they believe allow the organization they’re a part of to do that it wouldn’t be able to do if the people in the organization didn’t believe that thing?
And this started to become clearer to me when I started listening to the actual claims that Jacob Coxin was making because a lot of them don’t really add up.
I’m sure Neuralink will only be used in the most responsible ways possible. Fitness trackers are a great example of… Okay I can’t do the sarcasm, the “wellness” industry is evil
Not just AI, but I recognized the use of it to create music videos featuring leaders. “Iran so far away” was a very popular video from months ago that racked up millions of views on YouTube.
And the creator is about as obviously a fascist as they could be without stating it outright.
Fascists clearly do not mind anybody who just memes on the people in power.
According to cellphone companies, apparently non-removable storage
Serving and protecting Big Oil IP?
There’s a new Chris Pratt movie about that, which paints it in a positive light for some reason.
There were more people that you’d expect who basically said the same thing about much of Linux (systemd) receiving age verification mechanics. To me, those arguments in favor of age verification seemed even louder because the change could be dismissed as “optional” and “open-source,” although the layman cannot easily drop or replace a computer operating system, and it would take significant political capital to change the source of systemd back to its pre-age-verification state.
Really, we should have heeded his warnings.
It’s been enlightening to see how many people lash out at you personally, using the sleights they hope you’d consider most offensive, in response to your opinions on a technology.
We appear to agree that AI simply increases the amount of energy usage rather than supplanting it, and that energy-intensive AI data centers are the norm for AI usage (such as the use OP is talking specifically about).
I didn’t realize people shut off their computers after having AI do something they might not have otherwise done anyway. Brains, yes. Computers, no.
yes that is what’s known as a: MOB.
mobs are inherently fascist.
That’s a… Wikipedia article for “crowd”. Not sure gathering at sports events is inherently fascist according to anybody.
I’ve heard some variety of “programmers like writing code more than reading it”
I can only imagine what it’s like to remove the former and pile on heaps more of the latter
I don’t presume Anthropic is designing anything to be ethical. First, the chatbot is unpredictable by design. Randomness is built in. Second, if they didn’t intend for bad things to happen, why didn’t an employee babysit it?
As the article said you can replace rogue agents with unpredictable computer programs if you really want, I don’t see the necessity.
Speaking of goalpost shifts: “Rogue agent” is the clickbait title across multiple articles. Remember you said nobody was misrepresenting the AIs. The still-inaccurate clarification (the unsupervised chatbot functioned exactly as it was designed to function, and the script running it allowed it to execute exactly the commands Anthropic wanted) doesn’t help the article the clarification is from. It certainly doesn’t absolve every other author.
At a bare minimum, it would be nice for users to tag their projects accordingly. You could, with a glance, realize there wouldn’t be a point in investing your time/energy into a project that the creator had less investment in, themselves.