It confounds me how these people would trust the same companies who fueled the decay of social discourse via the internet with the creation of AI models which aim to encroach on every aspect of our lives.
Nowadays it's been a long time since my brain totally checked out on spelling. Everything I write in every case has spell check, so why waste neurons on spelling?
I fear the same will happen on a much broader level with AI.
I don't know of any of the research, but I suspect that teaching reading via "sight reading" over phonics is heavily detrimental to developing an intrinsic automatic sense of spelling.
I disagree that my comment was negative at all. Many of those same people (not all) spend a lot of time making negative comments towards my work in AI, and tossing around authoritarian ideas of restriction in domains they understand like art and literature, while failing to also properly engage with the real issues such as intelligent mass surveillance and increased access to harmful information. They would sooner take these new freedom weapons out of the hands of the people while companies like Palintir and NSO Group continue to use them at scale.
> super-concerned about both the real and potential negatives that the rabid boosters won't even acknowledge
So am I, the difference is I am having a rational and not an emotional response, and I have spent a lot of time deeply understanding machine learning for the last decade in order to be able to have a measured, informed response.
> You don't have to "play the game" to make an impact, it's valid to try and challenge the math and change the rules too
I firmly believe you cannot ethically outlaw math, and this is part of why I have trouble empathizing with those who feel otherwise. People are so quick to support authoritarian power structures the moment it supposedly benefits them or their world view. Meanwhile, the informed are doing what they can to prevent this stuff from being used to surveil and classify humanity, and to find a balance that allows humans to coexist with artificial intelligence.
We are not falling prey to reactionary politics and disinformation, and we are not willing to needlessly expand government overreach and legislate away critical individual freedom in order to achieve our goals.
that's like saying that you can't outlaw selling bombs in a store because its "chemistry".
Or even for usage- can we not outlaw shooting someone with a gun because it is "projectile physics"?
Im glad you do oppose Palantir - we're on the same side and I support what you're doing! - but I also think you're leaving the most effective solution on the table by ignoring regulatory options.
But for nuclear - there's certainly good uses for nuclear power but its scary! and powers evil world ending bombs! and if it goes wrong people end up secretly mutated and irradiated and its all so awful and we should shut it down now !!
And to be honest I don't know my own feelings on nuclear power or "good" AI either, but I do get it when people want to Shut it All Down Right Now !! Even if there is a legitimate case for being genuinely useful to real people.
How was any of this inevitable? Point me to which law of physics demanded we reach this state of the universe. These companies actively choose to train these models, and by framing their development as "inevitable" you are helping absolve them of any of the negative shit they have/will cause.
>figuring out how society evolves from here instead of complaining and trying to legislate away math
Could you not apply this exact logic to the creation of nuclear weaponry--perhaps the greatest example of tragedy of the commons?
>prevent honest people from using these tools while criminals freely make use of them
What is your argument here? Should we suggest that everyone learn how to money launder to even the playing field against criminals?
Gestures vaguely around at everything
Intelligence is intelligence, and we are beginning to really get down to the fundamentals of self-organization and how order naturally emerges from chaos.
> Could you not apply this exact logic to the creation of nuclear weaponry--perhaps the greatest example of tragedy of the commons?
Yes, I can. Access to information is one thing (must be carefully handled, but information wants to be free, and there should be no law determining what one person can say to another, barring NDAs and government classification of national secrets (which doesn't include math and physics) but we absolutely have international treaties to limit nuclear proliferation, and we also have countries who do not participate in these treaties, or violate them, which illustrates my point that criminals will do whatever they want.
> Should we suggest that everyone learn how to money launder to even the playing field against criminals?
I have no interest in entertaining your straw mans. You're intelligent enough to understand context.
Certainly. We should also teach them how phishing scams work, and about confirmation bias, high pressure sales tactics, phantom limbs, vote splitting, inflation, optical illusions, demagoguery, peer pressure, lotteries, both insurance and insurance fraud, and lots of other things work.