esyir

There are internal controls as to the use of personal data within Google. Contrary to the popular opinion, personal data is not actually a free for all within Google

I think the biggest thing that people refuse to accept is that the optimal number of accidental deaths is non zero

And this carries on for all the other sources of injury and other "bad" things. Provided, of course, the cause it's explicit and direct.

I'll add an expansion here. It's more useful to you locally, as you have excess compute that's generally wasted. If you're serving multiple user and trying to max output, you might cost some in this case

I do think that this is natural. When you use LLM coding tools, you're becoming a lot more like an architect/staff/manager, rather than the direct coder. You're setting out the spec, coming up with the design, and coming up with the high level structure of the project.

However, this comes at the cost of losing track of the minute details of the implementation because you didn't write it yourself. I find it a bit analogous to code I've reviewed vs code I've written.

However, I've found using AI for code structure summary and questioning tends to be a good way to get around it. I might forget faster, but I also pick it up faster.

My impression is that, seeing the rising AI use rates everywhere, that you are in a bubble.

Could be me too, but seeing China's general societal infatuation with AI outpace the US by orders of magnitude, I think that's a bit less likely.

Sure, then they can go demand said standards for social media platforms including expected amount per N post, just as car companies are not expected to have car fatality rates be 0.

The fact is that simple scale means that there will always be something, no matter how abhorrent. Small scale doesn't change this, it just concentrates it.

We're talking about CSAM right? Which all platforms remove proactively, build models to remove and essentially always respond to when informed.

Demanding some perfect immediate magic response there is the equivalent of asking car manufacturers to prevent all deaths.

If car manufacturers cannot bring car related deaths to zero, they too should no longer be legitimate companies.

For a community full of engineers, I'm always surprised that people always take absolutionist views on minor technical decisions, rather than thinking of the tradeoffs made that got there.

Not the OP, but my interpretation here is that if you model the replies as some point in a vector space, assuming points from a given domain cluster close to each other, replies that span two domains need to "tunnel" between these two spaces.

I think what my ideal is basically DnD, but with an AI DM.

This is something that I'm hoping the current LLM and future AI work eventually get us to. If we can get persistent context and memory, or at least a simulacrum of that, we could get to truly dynamic reactive worlds

I'd say that the internet has also strongly lowered the barriers to external propaganda and influence, which is another major factor here. When you've got a huge swarm of "people" with no stake, or even a negative stake in your country, that's a naturally destabilizing factor

You mean like the countless western "safety", copyright and "PC" changes that've come through?

I'm no fan of the CCP, but it's not as though the US isn't hamstringing it's own AI tech in a different direction. That area is something that china can exploit by simply ignoring the burden of US media copyright

Just a note, chatGPT does retain a persistent memory of conversations. In the settings menu, there's a section that allows you to tweak/clear this persistent memory

I don't really think Nintendo is particularly concerned about Casette Beasts. And BF6 using it for their map builder is IMO a bit of a stretch.

Planetenverteidigungskanonenkommandant looks neat though.

I deliberately chose the FDA here specifically because of this. The problem here is that on a societal level, we have to be willing to tolerate some risk. If a drug could have saved many, but is rejected because of occasional complications, that sounds like a poor cost benefit analysis.

Feels like this is the fundamental flaw with a lot of things not just in the private sector, but the public one too.

Look at the FDA, where it's notoriously bogged down in red tape, and the incentives slant heavily towards rejection. This makes getting pharmaceuticals out even more expensive, and raises the overall cost of healthcare.

It's too easy to say no, and people prioritize CYA over getting things done. The question then becomes how do you get people (and orgs by extension), to better handle risk, rather than opting for the safe option at every turn?

I think you're going to realize that as time passes and this becomes more normalized, your opinion is going to become the minority. That might be a good thing, or maybe not.

Sure, it's been done before, but looking at the end result though, I'm not sure if that's a strong argument for whether it should be done again.

Look at the end state of the US auto industry. It's uncompetitive in basically every part of the world and thus basically irrelevant, except in the US. Unless somehow something different is going to happen here, this could end up with Intel continuing to perform poorly, negating the point of keeping it alive to begin with.

The big difference is that chess is a game/sport, and those are about competition between humans. It's a deliberately restricted ruleset to encourage such, thus the (imperfect) banning of assistance.

The same doesn't really apply to everything outside of that.

Still, you'd think that status would still remain, it's not like the invention of the car removed the glory of being the world's fastest sprinter.

For the people that make them, they're largely making them for money.

I think you, and a lot of other people really overestimate the number of people for whom the technical challenge is why they cheat.

Seeing that the cheating industry is relatively large, and functions on a subscription basis; For the vast majority of cheaters the challenge is entering their credit card to get their cheat subscription.

These are people who want to win at all costs, other users be damned.

Conversely, everything involving Musk also gets spammed by his hatedom.

Except famously Japan, even Tokyo, where housing costs have consistently stayed low.

While from a materials standpoint, its more of a "what fits the needs", from a printing point of view it's definitely a level up going from PLA to PETG / ABS. Both in terms of skill (PETG can be annoying to dial in) and machine reqs (Hot End, ventilation, etc)

It's probably expected that the cost goes down with time. Also, what VC money? Copilot is Microsoft.

Turns out doing it better influences people's preferences. The problem is fundamentally that the carmakers do such a shit job.

If infotainment systems matter at all to consumers, we'd expect to see GM take a hit for this, and get their market share eaten by competitors who don't do so.

>Regarding Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties, such as evacuations and roof knocks, these measures, while notable, do not always prevent significant civilian harm. The dense population and small geographical size of Gaza, for instance, make it nearly impossible for civilians to find safe refuge during conflicts. Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas. The use of civilian areas by Hamas for military purposes is indeed condemnable; however, it doesn't justify the scale of response that results in extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.

While I generally agree with the sentiment here, it's one of those where the tradeoff is in Israel's lives, versus those of Palestinians under Hamas rule. We could argue about the ratios here, but at the end of the day, I do believe that it's perfectly reasonable for a country to prioritize it's own losses, over those of an enemy nation's. When it crosses the line is largely a matter of opinion, rather than any rigorous principle.

Of particular note,

> Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas.

This has a specific carve out for the exact case which you speak of. If the civilian area is used for military operations then, by international law, it's now a permitted target. The reason is obvious: To do otherwise would make civilian areas a shield and encourage further use of them for military use. As long as Hamas continues to use them as such, they will continue to, by international law, be legitimate targets. (there are other catches, and it doesn't mean one man with a gun in a hospital means you can blow the whole thing up.)

As for the bit on morality, that was largely in response to the implication that the moral failings were largely Israel's. In the end, this is war, and there are often few "good guys" in war. But while morality is largely the domain of the victor, the rules are not nearly as directly set. From what I've seen, Israel appears to be far more in line with the rules of war than Hamas. That Hamas has not managed to achieve high civilian kill counts is not for lack of trying, but instead for lack of ability. Their "lower impact" should not be taken as any form of moral high ground.

>so too are military strategies that do not prioritize minimizing harm to civilians. Both scenarios reflect a moral failing in respecting the sanctity of human life.

Strong disagree there. There's always a tradeoff, and where that boundary lies is never going to be fixed. There will always be "acceptable losses" in warfare, to do otherwise is to essentially surrender.

Moreover, Israel has taken actions to reduce civilian losses in the form of evacuations, roof knocks and the like. Conversely Hamas is well known to use civilian areas for military purposes. And this doesn't even consider hostage treatment.

If we talk about minimizing harm, then Hamas is doing the opposite, and thus is a greater moral failure

If you attack me and I shoot you, you're to blame for your death, not me.

If a country attacks me and I counterattack to make sure you can't attack me anymore, you remain at blame.

There are details, like deliberate civilian attacks vs collateral, but at the end of the day, the duty of a country is to protect it's own citizens, and not the citizens of the aggressor.