AnimalMuppet

There is no one gene for humanness. Never the less, human DNA (the sum of the DNA carried by any one human) is distinctly human, rather than chimp or canine or lizard. That's why the organism becomes a human body, not a chimp or a canine or a lizard.

Are they becoming educated? Or are they just adopting the bias of the AI? (Which is the bias of its training data and/or trainers.)

Is it worse than "I asked my coworker"? Yes, because maybe six coworkers total are who the entire country is asking. That's too much influence for a program.

Oh, they have something else. They have some agents that are pretty decent at moving data around in unusual ways on the internet. That's not nothing, but it's a small market.

> If babies were not conscious then killing them would be no problem.

Say what? No. Killing them would be a problem because they're human. With that comes the capability to become conscious, whether or not they are at the time they are babies.

> It is their capacity for consciousness (however nascent) that makes them human, and therefore, sacred.

No, it's their DNA that makes them human.

By the way, in my harsh comments about EA, I think I was mainly arguing with the "patient philosophy" (and the people who hold it), which was my impression of all of EA.

Thanks for the answers and the dialog!

I don't miss the memory models - on Borland or any other environment.

But oh, the license. "Use it like a book". That is, any number of people can use it, but only one at a time. And it was like two paragraphs, and written for humans, not lawyers. Amazing.

So the datacenter uses as much water as 33.6 acres of farmland? And, um, how physically big is the data center? If it's more than 40 acres, it's using less water than what it replaced.

Because in at least some situations, panic can kill people, or at least make it more likely that they will die.

In the US, chipmunks out west sometimes carry it. You go to a national park, you see a cute little chipmunk, you decide to feed it (which you're not supposed to do anyway), you get really close to it...

A few people get infected that way. Not a thousand a year, but some every few years.

You supplied nothing but innuendo. Some counterargument or, even better, evidence, would be more convincing.

I could see a different argument against 3. Let's say you give some money now that lifts some people out of poverty. Those people don't raise their kids in poverty, which changes their kids' position, which means that their kids don't grow up in poverty, and so on. So money given now can have a compounding effect in peoples' lives, affecting more people in the future than just the people it affects today.

Then, I have some sincere questions. No, wait. First, my sincere compliments, both for your work and your giving.

Now, questions:

In your view (which I will listen to, because you're actually an EA), is the "wait until later to be more effective" actually a part of EA? Or is that a separate thing that calls itself by the same label?

If it's the same thing, it sounds like you don't act that way. Do you not buy the "later" logic? If not, why not?

I could see it starting a new religion, with the theology being "AI is God" or some such. It could write a "scripture" for that, and believers would read it and believe it.

But AI modifying the Bible is not going to be very well received by people who actually believe the Bible. Ditto the Koran. Ditto any other religion where people in the religion actually believe the book.

Show us the counterexample, then. Preferably more than one. Someone who wears the EA label, and actually does things to help with real problems.

> Meh, they have some beliefs i disagree with, but ultimately they are spending money on things like feeding the hungry.

Are they? To what degree are they? And to what degree are they not helping the hungry today, in order to amass more money so that they can in theory help the hungry more tomorrow?

I can respect someone like Bill Gates. He hasn't been perfect, not by a long shot, but he's put real money into really trying to help real problems. What's the track record of the effective altruists? (Genuine question - I haven't researched them enough to know.)

No, in a system of limited government, the government should not want absolute power. If it wants it, it should absolutely not get it.

Mind you, I don't want the effective altruists to have the kind of power they seem to want, either...

They define "altruism" as "don't actually do anything about the problems of today, so that you can do more about them tomorrow". But does tomorrow ever come?

Bluntly, I trust Jesus more than them. And in Luke 16:10, Jesus said, "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much."

We understand that static analysis is often less bulletproof than a compiler's type system. It doesn't always catch everything. If it does, it often says "may", and then you have to sort out the false positives from the real problems, and there can be a lot of them.

And if you don't take every problem seriously, and do a full investigation, then you are risking a real problem that you don't fix, which can turn into... a runtime crash.

But what does static analysis work on? The source code. If it's not in the source code, the static analyzer can't check it. So if you want to check something, even with a static analyzer, then you need some way to talk about that thing in the source code, which means it has to be part of the source language.

Now, sure, you could have some kind of annotations in the comments or something, and a static analyzer that checked those, and you could get that to check pretty much anything that can be checked statically. But at that point, it's not really part of the language, is it?

I haven't played with it at all, but the writeup looks promising. Moving a bunch of things into the type system and out of runtime crashes is one of the ways we make progress.

Yeah. It's not just cost, it's time. If I have to replace the fan, that's a trip to a hardware store, then a half hour (at least) to remove the old and install the new and get it wired correctly, so that it works and doesn't burn my house down. Then I have to take the old one apart far enough to fit it into the garbage can.

Replacing a bulb is a trip to my stash of bulbs in the laundry room, then throwing the old one in the trash.

I don't have time in my life for a fan with non-replaceable bulbs.

And to me. We can't solve alignment for humans. (For example, treason. For another, the principal-agent problem.) How do we think we're going to solve it for an AGI? An AGI - defined loosely as a human-level intelligence - will be able to make human-level decisions, like deciding whether it wants to help you or sabotage you. If it's an AGI, you can't stop it from being able choose for itself what it wants to do; if you can make it always be helpful, it's not an AGI.

And if we can't solve it for an AGI, what are we going to do with an ASI?

True, but... when they themselves say that they didn't read the article, and post a random opinion that is contrary to the article, then "maybe you should actually read it" is at least somewhat called for.

So xAI is suing in order to be able to keep generating fake nudes of identifiable individuals. They say that it's a first amendment issue. And I can in fact see that. But I also see the right of people to not have nude images of them created without their consent. And the fact that xAI is taking the side of the freedom to create these images, rather than the side of people having the freedom of not having these things created about them, tells me a whole lot about the morals of xAI.

Ah, I see.

No. But somebody understood the high-level architecture, and somebody understood each piece in detail. And if you needed to work on piece X.Y.Z, you could find somebody who could tell you how X fit into the big picture, and somebody else who could tell you how Y fit in X, and somebody else who could tell you how Z fit into Y, and maybe somebody else who could tell you about the details of Z.

>>> pretty sure he's turning Iran to sand after the elections, he'll have nothing left to lose and US is only country to ever use nuclear weapons on a million innocent civilians, twice, so why stop now?

I think it's pretty clear that ck2 was talking about using nukes.

Why do you think that anyone here considers US use to be "no problem"?

Or they do what they don't like, under the pressure of the moment, in order to pass, and keep their sense of taste in a separate place from passing that one class.

"I don't understand the code anymore. It works." That's fine... today.

"I will never need to understand the code again" is a much different statement.

If you don't understand the code, and the code wasn't written by any human, when you're eventually painted into a corner, how hard is it going to be to get out? Will it be easier or harder than maintaining an understanding through however long it takes to get to that point?

You may be betting your company on the answer. How sure are you?