invig

Driving is an important form of freedom. The argument that driving is for rich people and the poor should do something else is absurd.

Humans are corrupt.

We have the largest governments in human history. You might as well say "we just need stronger companies" for all the good it does to say better governments would help and remove the indirection.

Amazing to watch some here try and justify another tax that hurts poor people and deprives them of access to opportunity, that doesn't impact rich people.

The web already contains vastly more information than you could ever even begin to read or look at in a lifetime. Most of it is total garbage. You have to use a trust filter to find things worth looking at.

You're arguing that there isn't a trust filter that can do that, but there will be, and it will probably be an AI.

Well, extra careful, but we've still got to beat the Russians. We're not going to not beat the Russians over this, so figure it out.

Trying to keep everyone happy is keeping no one happy.

Give up control of what you are consuming at your own peril.

To go deeper on the idea:

Seller wants Y, and wants to do work X to pay for Y.

Buyer has to want work X.

Unless buyer and seller know each other really well, Y doesn't matter to buyer.

So by focusing heavily on Y your growth is limited to the subset of the network that seller already has and can promote to, that also wants X from them.

If you can't bring new buyers it's going to be very hard to entice sellers to join.

Given that you'd need a lot more buyers than sellers to make this one work, it's hard to see the focal point of Y working out.

Market places are very hard. Good luck with your next product! Keep building.

The sender is trusting that Apple isn’t capturing the message content in the iMessages app after it gets decrypted so it can be shown to the receiver.

In a closed system the sender trusts Apple and the person they’re sending to.

If you are sending to someone receiving in some other app, you have to trust the receiver, Apple, and who ever makes the thing that is being used to display the decrypted message. You don’t even know what app you’re trusting as the sender.

The further you go down this rabbit hole the more ergh it all feels, but actually being able to trust the whole chain from your mind to someone else’s over the internet is quite hard.

Perspective shift, there's an axis of responsibility:

Hacker - It's my stuff and I'm responsible for how it works. User - I'm using this and it's the suppliers job to make sure it works.

Where you sit on this spectrum from Hacker to User defines your opinion on this.

Neither end is wrong, they just want different things.

"Works on my machine"

As a conflicted board member you would have access to the information, you just wouldn't participate in the conversation / decision making.

I suppose you've invented the perfect character judgement machine that we can also run the safety people through as we figure out who we can trust to "get it right"?

If we don't put exactly the "right" humans in charge surely we're doomed.

The same is true for anything. It's possible we could stumble into a dragon and unless we've built dragon defences it'll be too late.

This is not just a problem in engineering. Read a news article. Talk to anyone about anything. The lifting that poorly defined abstractions are doing is toxic.

Yes!

The AI is trained on human behaviour, it’s a mirror.

We’re delusional if we think humans are any better at this.

I think we’re also delusional if we think we can define what is true. At best we can give an approximation of what we think we know now.

Isn’t the same thing true of any human who isn’t doing scientific research? Like how much work to get to veracity is actually going on out there?

So the argument is “Our brains can freewheel generative ideation without mistaking our imagination for fact”.

When a human thinks it’s able to determine the difference between imagination and fact, but when a human reads words on a screen it isn’t?

Drivel.

I've attempted to solve this problem. The whole sector is extremely low trust and adversarial, and to be fair they have good reason to be given rampant fraud and their difficult relationships with landlords. It's definitely solvable, but you've got to be willing to play in atoms and have your own test bed (car parks) to do it right.

Second "creature". I don't see it being different from humans in this regard.

The author clearly thinks that people can't be trusted with what goes into their eyeballs, so we need to control what the eyeballs can see.

WTF are they even trying to say in this article?

<3

So many possibilities have been crushed.

"think on some level the idea of some abstract"

This! So much this! These conversations are being held at such a high level of abstraction that they don't make sense. It's one giant "feels" session.

The corporations pay for people to learn how to do this stuff. Eventually, someone will leave and build the open-source version (when it's feasible to do it / the price has come down).

WHAT SAFEGUARDS?

"Someone else should come up with something"

Like there's someone else out there (who aren't the people making the thing) who has a better idea on how to keep it safe.

In 2035. Maybe we can pause AI development in 2035?

Are there laws preventing people from doing that themselves?

If yes, how does a law preventing AI differ from a law preventing a bad act directly?

It's pretty hard to be pro-"safety" on things like social media, news, AI, etc., and then turn around and say with a straight face that infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to be moderated.

I long for the net neutrality times when we were still sane.