HardlyCognizant

Nothing can save everyone, that's the point. There is no miracle out there that suddenly makes the world a fairy tale. And I don't have an answer, otherwise I would have made a claim to that effect.

This is a hard problem, and the human mind is not naturally equipped to work at the scales in question. Perhaps the solution is a thing (e.g a program), a process like democracy of some ilk, or something else entirely. The important part is recognizing our limits and working to account for them in our solutions. Acting without that awareness is a recipe for disaster.

> why are we building all of this?

To remove humans from power in all cases where our biases and animalistic nature would cause unnecessary suffering to others. As a species we are quickly approaching some very hard problems that no individual, or even small group, is capable of handling in a consistently rational manner. On our current trajectory of resource constraints and habitability constrictions, ethics by the numbers is inevitable.

We are either going to leave it to the powerful to sacrifice those they consider undesirable, as we have throughout history, or replace them with something not afflicted by the flawed elements of human nature to make the most compassionate decision possible amidst the horror.

I always assumed the American version was using "could" ironically. Now I'm wonder if is an unintentional neologism.

Do they roll their own software, or is it a purchased solution? I'd love to know more about the application powering it.

Poison pilling skills is a thing, though finding evidence for it is difficult given the crux is an absence of information. The baseline instruction and training is given to the model by the expert, but edge cases are willfully neglected. The degree of neglect generally determines how detectable it is, but if all the SMEs are in on it a lot of them will probably persist. Effectiveness and impact are obviously relative to the system and the edge case. Not particularly different from the fallout previously seen during the offshoring era.

I'd imagine you have to read for a particular framework to assess viability. Translating from a literary medium to a visual one is very challenging. Much of the detail in the former will be lost in the latter, like inner monologue, narrative time compression, etc.

There is a reason most underlying film stories are so short, or feel tenuously connected from major scene to scene. There just isn't room to express much complexity through imagery and dialogue in 120ish minutes, unless you are also overtly narrating or exposition dumping. And a core rule of modern fiction is "show, don't tell" no matter the medium.

It's the prisoner's dilemma. I believe any self-preservation optimized intelligence is going to suffer from these problems until those behaviors are countered in interaction by design (e.g. process, societal/cultural pressures, etc.) or removed from the baseline (i.e. evolved out.)

Our desires make us our own worst enemies, and until we acknowledge and openly plan to counter these tendencies, any social structure at some scale is going to fail to them. Unfortunately, the problems we face as a species are increasingly at larger and larger scales.

I'm not sure if we can remain what we would recognize as "human," and solve for this without surrendering some level of executive function to an entity not afflicted by it. Government and regulation are already expressions of this, while retaining our intrinsic nature, but history has demonstrated this is inherently unstable.

That just means the forms of lobbying being permitted are antithetical to democracy, and is just bribery in a different form. The problem is with the lobbying, not the accountability.

No, you are using it ironically. The connotation of a word is entirely contextual.

Not even gluten, one of the peptides it is composed of. Prolamins like gliadin, horadin, etc. depending on the grain. This is why gluten denaturing proteases aren't sufficient to protect a celiac, and thus some technically GF foods aren't necessarily safe.

I feel the greatest difference is that in science, you are to assume the negative. You are to prove yourself wrong, not right. Being right is a matter of accomplishment by exclusion. It is the pursuit of facts/truth, but with the understanding that you are cutting away the incorrect or irrelevant to leave a predictive remnant, not starting with an answer.

They are liable and there is precedent, as I understand it.

eBay v Newmark

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/3472

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/basr.12108

As I understand it C2 (command and control) is technically separate, and traditionally resembles Theory X , though current thinking seems to have aspirations towards Theory Y for various roles and scenarios in Mission Command.

Others have have covered most of these, but I'll chime in to agree:

1. Break down required activities into emotionally manageable tasks. (Sometimes this necessitates rendering it down to a level where it seems trivial.)

2. Cut deals with yourself. Permit yourself to procrastinate on one thing, but only if you work on this other priority task. (This works well within a task even, if you have done #1.)

3. Build momentum by completiing easier things first. (This is especially effective if you find satisfaction in checking items off a todo list.)

Unfortunately, with the advent of things like Badge Engineering, brand has now become a prisoner's dilemma problem. Eventually, the brand will sell out and people will fall victim to the switch. There are obviously exceptions, but it happens frequently enough these days that trusting a brand anymore is unreliable.