I don't see why it would be "kafkaesque" either.
In fact I fail to see any connection between those two facts other than that both are decisions to allow or not allow something to happen by OpenAI.
In fact I fail to see any connection between those two facts other than that both are decisions to allow or not allow something to happen by OpenAI.
Imagine if ChatGPT gave "do a luigi" as a solution to walmart tracking your face, gait, device fingerprints, location, and payment details, then offering that data to local police forces for the grand panopticon to use for parallel reconstruction.
It would be unimaginable. That's because the only way for someone to be in the position to determine what is censored in the chat window, would be for them to be completely on the side of the data panopticon.
There is no world where technology can empower the average user more than those who came in with means.
It is funny, in worst way possible of course, that even our chairs are not as stable as we thought they are. Even automation can be somehow automated away.
Remember all those posts stating how software engineering is harder, more unique, somehow more special than other engineering, or generally types of jobs? Seems like its time for some re-evaluation of that big ego statements... but maybe its just me.
I'm less talking about automation and more about the underpinnings of the automation and the consequences in greater society. Not just the effects it has on poor ole software engineers.
It is quite ironic to see the automation hit engineers, who in the past generally did not care about the consequences of their work, particularly in data spaces. We have all collectively found ourselves in a local minima of optimization, where the most profitable thing we can do is collect as much data on people as possible and continually trade it back and forth between parties who have proven they have no business holding said data.
0. The people who got into it just as a job
1. The people who thought they could do it as art
And #1 is getting thrashed and thrown out the window by the advent of AI coding tools, and the revelation companies didn’t give a darn about their art. Same with AI art tools and real artists. It even begs the question if programming should ever have been viewed as an art form.
On that note, programmers collectively have never minded writing code that oppresses other people. Whether with constant distractions in Windows 11, building unnecessarily deadly weapons at Northrop Grumman, or automating the livelihoods of millions of “inferior” jobs. That was even a trend, “disrupting” traditional industries (with no regard to what happens to those employed in said traditional industry). Nice to see the shoe just a little on the other foot.
For many of you here, keep in mind your big salary, came from disrupting and destroying other people’s salaries. Sleep well tonight and don’t complain when it’s your turn.
Northrop Grumman only builds what Congress asks of them, which is usually boring shit like toilet seats and SLEPs. You can argue that they design unnecessarily deadly weapons, but if they've built it then it is precisely as deadly as required by law. Every time Northrop grows a conscience, BAE wins a contract.
That's a lame "I was just following orders" excuse. Doesn't matter who gets the contract, if you work for a weapons manufacturer or a large corporation that exploits user data you have no moral high ground. Simple as that.
"unnecessarily deadly"?
I had no idea that it was possible to measure degrees of dead: she's dead, they're dead, we're all dead, etc. - I thought it was the same "dead" for everyone.
Also, interesting but ambiguous sentence structure.
Is this an offshoot of LLMs that I've overlooked?
The thing is, there's no innovation in the "track everything that breaths and sell the data to advertisers and cops" market.
They might get better at the data collection and introspection, but we as a society have gotten nothing but streamlined spyware and mental illness from these markets.
Recent grads are having serious trouble to get work right now: https://www.understandingai.org/p/new-evidence-strongly-sugg...
> It would be unimaginable.
By "do a luigi" you're referring to the person who executed a health insurance CEO in cold blood on the street?
Are you really suggesting that training LLMs to not suggest committing murder is evil censorship? If LLMs started suggesting literal murder as a solution to problems that people typed in, do you really think that would be a good idea?