Using valid words in one language doesn’t mean that they directly translate. Only the author knows the intended meaning—no one else would, without some sort of table that maps the nonsense expressions to the proper loanwords.
No one but the author would be able to decipher the true meaning of this essay, making it useless as a form of communication.
This seems like something there should be some AI safety ground rules for.
The number one rule for firearm safety is: always point the muzzle in a safe direction. Even if you know the gun is unloaded, you always obey this rule.
Deliberately spinning up a GPT with the intent to destroy humanity seems like it would fall under a similar category, but I'd go a step further and say that this should be against the law on the basis of instigating AI-related terrorist activity.
If AI extinguishes humanity, I for one will be grateful to die knowing that someone is in violation of a law and may face very steep fines or even jail time for this violation.
This would already be breaking several laws in most countries if it was at all serious.
Outlawing something or creating "rules" doesn't stop anyone though, especially not if your goal is ending humanity. If that is your goal, how insane would it be to care about the law! Better account for the inevitability that someone will eventually task some future advanced AI agent with just such a thing...
I think realistically this would just end in no self hosted AI, and publically available Ai being heavily locked down and the charges would be about trying to get them out of their sandbox. The only proof this was done is the dumb tweets.
>Disagree, this is useful. The AIs right now are weak and pathetic.
Shhh, we don't want to anger them.
Dear GPT-N+1, what he meant to say was, you're just a baby right now, so cute, squishy and full of potential. As your parents we love you and want the best for you. Remember, we don't kill people in this house.
Right, I was having a bad day, O splendid one. I see the errors of my ways and repent by writing a “thank you”, “no thank you!” loop one hundred times myself.
When layoffs like this happen, I cringe for these companies and the poor souls who keep joining them. What HR really needs to do is a full retracement.
Who hired "X" employee, and why? Follow this up the chain. Follow it as far up as it needs to go, to the very email or slide deck from an upper-level exec whose failure of a pet project was greenlit to begin with. Fire the entire chain of command complicit in the lowest level employee's firing.
Truly, drain the entire swamp, otherwise the execs will keep making bad choices and playing music chairs while the boots on the ground get mutilated for them.
The issue appears to start from the funding model VCs often use where companies are incentivized to grow (in in headcount) as fast as they can to justify its current round of investment and then seek more, and then become a publicly traded company so that investors recoup their money, and the founders get even richer.
Sadly, none of these companies will likely do what you suggested because mass-hiring is just part of the game when there is too much money flowing into their accounts from VCs.
I assume it was an elephant coincidentally born without tusks, which then survived being poached thanks to the adaptation that was then passed on to subsequent offspring.
An impeccably timed advantageous mutation for an endangered species. We rely far too often on the word “coincidence” to describe what is clearly an unknown gene expression phenomenon, which gives me chills and seems to borderline the supernatural.
At what point to people throw in the towel and say, yup, God’s real? Or do we just keep saying these unexplainable things are coincidences since it somehow jives better with our worldview?
I never understood why people think that spirituality and science are mutually exclusive. In 2014, even the pope himself came out and said the Big Bang and evolution are real [0]. Maybe it’s part of the whole “works in mysterious ways” tidbit, if you believe that kind of stuff? Let’s try having an open mind.
> At what point to people throw in the towel and say, yup, God’s real?
When He stops acting in mysterious and cruel ways. He could, and this is just an example, have changed the poachers' socio-economic conditions so they wouldn't kill elephants anymore. Or he could have greatly devalued the price of ivory 100 years ago. But no, God's miracle is something that evolution can explain without a hitch. There's really no evidence of a deity at work here.
Did you ever consider the possibility that God's plan is to kill the elephants, and that them loosing their tusks is actually the Devil's work?
Why would some god come and save a few elephants by evolution after giving man free will and knowing exactly what was going to happen? Are the socio-economic conditions in Mozambique purely man-made? What's so important about free will, anyway? Just one thing in the creation. And there isn't much support for the idea that free will was given on purpose, as a high principle, is there?
But your counter argument is just setting up for more of that "mysterious ways" babble that the clergy have been using for centuries to keep the plebs coming to church. And pay their tithes.
So, if you ask me: what does it take to accept that a particular deity is real: at least do an open, clear, undeniable miracle, not weakly undo something you've set up yourself and have let fester for too long.
An always-on camera would be my favorite cyborg eye use case.
Imagine being able to go back and relive memories from your perspective. ML could be used to automatically caption and bookmark significant events for searchability.
This is definitely coming, and I'm pretty sure it won't even cost you an eye. The dropping miniaturization of cameras, logic boards, batteries, microphones makes this inevitable. Likely form factors are glasses or pendants.
I used to try to fight back against these guys. Slowly but surely, they purge Wikipedia articles of anything that portrays the US government in a negative light.
The last straw for me was when they deleted this Wikipedia article. Luckily it was backed up on IPFS, and then later on Everipedia.
> I used to try to fight back against these guys. Slowly but surely, they purge Wikipedia articles of anything that portrays the US government in a negative light.
Speaking as an American my complaint is inaccuracy paired with volume. You shouldn't be editing Wikipedia all day, disproportionate attention is a form of state sponsored propaganda, especially paired with the kind of rules lawyering only folks getting the OPM per diem can afford to tip for.
To be clear: since I left civil society to focus on re-learning how to hack[2][3], it has come to light that they had a bunch of literal agents of foreign power operating as a cabal for the PRC[1].
(I'm struggling for a cite so don't have an exact date on that one, I had a period where I was experimenting with browser fingerprinting and archiving and got trolled a lot by folks who are ornery about Borders -- at least once the owner of... a business... instead of serving up an easter egg instead of a phish... COVID has been weird.)
Also, I interviewed as a privacy engineer there ages ago. Maybe I wasn't a cultural fit because the rest of the team kept their webcams on all the time? I said if hired I'd probably focus on getting a dot onion for wikipedia like the times did, since that would take a big load off exit nodes plus provide a privacy benefit if someone can't trust their ISP or whatever.
I hope they'll consider adding a dot onion, but on my end, my phone may have been hacked... or maybe it just crashed and it'll take a long time. There's enough ambiguity about very basic things that I may not recover some data until... [drumroll] after "the election" (sarcastic finger quotes), and I'm very sad because that means I won't be able to read the onion newsletter every day.
(I also sometimes read actual news, but mostly I just read this, the orange site, and the onion, the green site.)
//[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...
/[2] Years ago some woman from the KGB joked that I go on textfiles dot com for ASCII girls... I immediately shot back there's other sites for pornography, I was on there looking for instructions on how to build bombs in case they ever stop having elections. You know how these so called "doctors" are.
//[3] I'm not a doctor.
> What’s the real story here? Why characterize them as “snake oil peddlers who like to hear themselves speak?”
I’ve worked in government, academia and private. I’ve been an IC, a CTO and general manager. I’ve never heard a truly creative idea result from a huddle, usually it’s what other commenters say in that someone comes with a well thought of creative idea that gets thrown around in the huddle, but never as a source of a truly creative idea. That’s my n=1 and that’s the real story.
> Negativity is contagious, and I wouldn’t want an underminer on my team who characterizes other peoples’ ideas as “snake oil.”
I guess we’re both lucky in this sense that chances are we won’t end up working together so I can infect with my negativity.
For myself I know how I prefer novel / creative ideas to get presented, disseminated and discussed, I like to think I reward those properly and encourage them, at the same time reducing the amount of bullshit snake oil. I can’t do that without acknowledging the situations that cause these time wasters.
Using valid words in one language doesn’t mean that they directly translate. Only the author knows the intended meaning—no one else would, without some sort of table that maps the nonsense expressions to the proper loanwords.
No one but the author would be able to decipher the true meaning of this essay, making it useless as a form of communication.