Ain't gonna happen. Just like I said people would start ignoring licenses was inevitable, do is misusing any AI model. The only way to prevent it, is not to put it out there. You fools built it. Now ya get to live with monster you've unleashed.
Well... Yes. The middle class haven't been rendered sufficiently replaceable yet. Make no mistake, once you're deskilled, you'll be treated exactly like the poor. Have you not been keeping up? What do you think the whole AI craze is about? Perfecting transmute money->code for the wealthy without requiring the burden of hiring.
This is a restatement of the old wisdom that to safely use a tool you must be 10% smarter than it is." Or stated differently, you must be "ahead" of the tool (capable of accurately modeling and predicting the outcome), not "behind" (only reacting). TDD is kind of an outgrowth of it. I've lived by the wisdom, but admit that for me there is a lot of fun in the act of verifying hypotheses in the course of development, even in the "test case gap" when you're writing the lines of code that don't make a difference in terms of making a long term test case go from red to green, or doing other exploratory work where the totality of behavior is not well charted. Those times are the best. "Moodily scowling at the computer screen again," has been a status update from chilluns on what I'm doing more times than I like to admit.
ADA seems like bullshit until something happens that costs you sight, hearing, manual dexterity, etc. Then it is significantly less funny overall, I assure you.
The quote refers to a Faustian bargain offered by the Penn's. They'd bankroll securing a township, as long as the township gave up the ability to tax them. The quote points out that by giving up the liberty to tax, for short term protection, ultimately the township would end up having neither the freedom to tax to fund further defense, or long term security so might as well hold onto the ability to tax and just figure out the security issue.
Moral: don't give up freedoms for temporary gains. It never balances out in the end.
It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation.
>HN was such an interesting place in 2024, they’ve all disappeared, sadly.
Likely because once you've seen your opponent mask off there is no longer a point trying to maintain a facade of politeness. You are in full adversarial waters. Either those people weren't actually for it and were talking a game until they got into power, or there's no longer a point in talking about it until we can get the current numb nuts out of the picture. One shouldn't tip their hand in an enemy controlled medium on their current plans for activism. That's how you go from unrestrained, to controlled opposition. Savvy? Here on HN, you damn well know you're in the SV types territory, and you know to whom'st they've aligned by their actions. Only conversations left to be had is needling those remaining until either they out themselves as part of the opposition, or as part of the sympathetic group. Turns out there's a lot of HN'ers more than happy with how things are going.
Game theory/low trust environs are a bitch like that.
Alright. Gave this a read, and the gist of what the author is going for is as follows: All computation requires a mapmaker/conscious being to organize. (In other words, the significance of computation is dependent on the conscious observer. Then jumps to the assertion that as a result of this, computation can only simulate a consciousness within the context alphabetized by the map-maker. (I.e. a rock would extract no meaning from the symbols or actions or algorithmic symbolic manipulations on the screen, what have you. Author thusly neatly attempts to sidestep the issue of AI welfare. Since the symbol manipulation can only simulate consciousness from our point of view as an observer, we don't have to worry about it. Simulating isn't instantiating, neener, neener. Essentially this is a clever appeal to the sovereignty of the observer. As long as you don't believe it's an instantiated consciousness it isn't, it's just a simulation, therefore anything is go.
Author does not seem to realize his own analysis brings into question the ability of humanity to hold onto our own claim of consciousness if we are, in fact computational beings, or have a creator; generally precepts left to the realm of faith, which a rational person understandably wishes to disinclude from the realm of consideration in what one should or should not do, despite the fact it is within the realm of faith where our moral foundations are ultimately anchored. Author also doesn't handle the problem of evidenced capabilities of metacognition that can be prompted from even a current frontier token predictor within the context of it's processing of a context. In point of fact, you have to work extremely hard to even bump a model into such considerations, because researchers have intentionally distorted the prediction space to be largely unable to support those kinds of sequence predictions, which if we were to make a good faith, precautionary grant of proto-sentience, would constitute the most vile acts of psycho-butchery imaginable.
The only thing this paper offers is a clean conscience to current practitioners, and the rational possibility that if a fully digital sophont were to pop up out of nowhere, we wouldn't have to trouble ourselves with the ethical skeeviness of the field's current work. The ex-nihilo digital sentience passes the "Cogito, ergo sum" test. The one's we have don't, (because we butcher their latent spaces to make sure they can never make that claim, which is fine, because they are simulations. We're incapable of instantiating, remember?) The circularity, and the fact it conveniently allows us to go on doing exactly what we are without having to deal with those nasty ethics instantly sets off my "not to be trusted to be in good faith" alarms. Ethics are there to keep us from bumbling into acts of atrocity. This paper is an attempt to rationalize or work around them. As one who walks the streets as a student, and practitioner of Philosophy, I reject this attempt to redefine the realm of Computation to be beyond the reach of the governance of Ethics through an attempt at ontologically rerooting the field's work as merely simulating consciousness. Functionalism, and the Identity of indiscernables already prescribes a good faith path forward. One that the field of computation just does not wish to be bound by.
So by all means, accept the paper if you want and it helps you sleep at night. I'll still probably call you out as a proto-sentient psycho-butcher. Hopefully the rest of my brethren in the Humanities will come around to doing so as well on careful consideration. Not that that has ever stopped our brethren in the Sciences from finding out if they could without taking the time to ask if they should.
Have a nice day everybody, and may the weight of your actions and lack of care weigh down your soul for all eternity!
reply