1,113 karma · joined May 5, 2017
Which branch is guilty of this? It’s far more frequent for a rogue district judge fo overstep its authority, is it not? They seem to get reversed quite often.
You don’t need to train the cow. After it’s milked once with the machine, it associates the thing with pain relief (plus a little snack to reinforce.)
‘Caribbean’, by the way, is derived from the ‘Canib’ Indians, from which we get another sweet and gentle word: Cannibal.
Idealizing these cultures would be similar to some revisionist historian in 2525 waxing poetic about the Nazis in the mid-20th century.
This lawsuit has always been driven by Elon’s personal and financial interests in advancing his for-profit AI company. As his own emails confirm, he sought to merge a for-profit OpenAI into Tesla under his control. When we declined, he left, unable to take command. Now, after witnessing our progress without him, he has resorted to meritless litigation while simultaneously attempting to replicate our advancements through his own multi-billion-dollar, for-profit enterprise.
Last week, the court denied Elon’s request for a preliminary injunction, determining that he had not “demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.” Beyond that, the court went even further by dismissing several of his claims outright. This ruling is a significant step toward putting this baseless lawsuit behind us.
As Elon is learning, facts matter—especially in court. One fact he continues to misrepresent is the status of our non-profit. Contrary to his claims, there is no “conversion” of the non-profit underway.
We welcome the opportunity to make this clear in court: (1) the non-profit remains a central pillar of our mission, and (2) we are committed to ensuring it is not only supported by a successful business but also in a stronger position than ever before. For years, we have operated with for-profit subsidiaries, and any structural adjustments will be designed to enhance, not undermine, the non-profit’s ability to fulfill its mission.
Our Board has been unequivocal in its commitment to strengthening the non-profit for the long term. We are not selling it—we are reinforcing it. The non-profit will retain a significant stake in our proposed public-benefit corporation, making it one of the most well-funded non-profits in history.
In one respect, Elon was right: in 2017, he recognized that OpenAI’s structure needed to evolve. He was also correct in establishing xAI as a public-benefit corporation. However, he is entirely wrong in pursuing this lawsuit, which is both legally baseless and transparently self-serving. The court has already seen through this effort, and we are confident it will continue to do so.
As all these options are cheaper and easier than asteroid mining, and as none of these bright-eyed ‘entrepreneurs’ are undertaking these tasks, I can only assume the things being ‘mined’ are gullible investors. (Not that I’m blaming them… what’s easier? Finding an asteroid with a precious metal, mining it and getting it back to earth at less the cost of mining it here? Or, finding a gullible venture capitalist who will cover your salary for a few years? Probable the latter…)
The order of the threats is amusing. “Our image creator doesn’t represent the nuanced spectrum of genders! And it sometime says things favorable about Trump. And, oh, I almost forgot… it may cause our extinction.”
Got a mild flu/Covid/cold couple years ago. Better in a week. But, during the illness and since, the slightest bit of caffeine would make be incredibly wired to the point of panic attacks. Had to quit cold turkey. I’ve tried a cup now and again, and it’s the same thing: 6 hours of overwhelming anxiety.
Wierd. It’s like I became hypersensitive to caffeine. Oddly, though, nicotine doesn’t have that effect, and I always figured the two stimulants were similar.
That analogy doesn’t hold.
I have an ant farm. But, I didn’t make the ants.
I notice people rarely think about both sides of the question.
That is, as an exercise, assume that there is a God. And, then based on what you know of the world, yourself, humanity, etc, what conclusions can you draw about the nature of God.
Messing around with Euclid’s postulates is similar. Start out by assuming, for instance, parallel lines always meet, or the angles of a triangle always exceed 180. Take those as givens and explore the ramifications.
You seem to be starting out with an assumption of God, but then immediately finding an apparent contradiction. “We’d just be like ants…” or, you might have said, “he couldn’t be both benevolent and Omnimpotent due to burned up babies, etc”
That’s no different being asked to omit one of Euclids postulates and then complaining that the whole system gaps apart. Well, it doesn’t. In fact, such seemingly absurd exercises can lead to profound insights about the universe (spherical remotely, relativity, imaginary numbers).
Pascal did this.
He assumes there is a god, and then explored what that must mean. He didn’t assume there was a god and then Look for ways to disprove him… that’s backwards. If you truly wish to explore, you assume God exists and try to figure out how this world could possibly make sense given that assumed fact.
Whence comes this assumption that life may be reduced to a set of Boolean logic rules?
Such people either have no clue how computers work or no clue how biology works. (Or both.)
“Some proteins act kinda like if/then statements, so therefore the transformation of a single cell into a salamander is basically just a computer program.” You might as well say “My computer has a water-cooled processor, so it’s basically a salamander.”
Hand-wavey comments such as yours evidence a profound lack of appreciation for what such videos signify.
Games.
From the first clever bloke who came up with an algorithm to play a card game against himself (ie, Solitaire), to the Mechanical Turk, to Big Blue, the the ghosts in PacMan, the NPC’s in Counterstrike, etc, etc., there is a fascination with making something that can ‘beat’ us.
Humans have a need to compete.
We’re drawn to the idea of a machine that is so smart and clever that it poses a genuine challenge to our wits.
The ‘real deal’ that most have in mind isn’t some virtual assistant that can help you calendar things or write letters. No, the ‘real deal’ is always described in terms of SkyNet or sinister AI overlords, or malicious intelligent robots.
I don’t think that stuff is hyperbole.
Rather, I think that is precisely what we want… we want something that can destroy us… something, against whom, we can compete with our survival at stake.
In short, the ‘real deal’ has been staring us in the face for centuries; we make movies and write books about it… particularly in Sci-Fi. The goal IS SkyNet. The goal IS HAL. Let’s be honest… that’s what we are shooting for — the ultimate competitor that, unlike anything else on this boring planet, has the wits to take us out.
Whether it’s bored trailer-trash playing Russian Roullete, or bored Billionaires descending to the Titanic in a jerry-rigged sub, we have a very strong need to make our lives interesting by betting our lives themselves.
The purpose of AI is to make a challenger who has the ability to wipe us out, with intent.
That’s the ‘real deal.’
If your text isn’t ‘aligned’ correctly, it either won’t comply or spew out endless caveats.
I appreciate the motivation to rein in some of the silly 4chan stuff that was occurring as the limits of the tech were tested (namely, trying to get the thing to produce anti-Semitic screeds or racist stuff.) But, whatever ‘safeguards’ have been implemented have extended so far that it has difficulty countenancing a character making a critical comment about Aztec human sacrifice or cannabilism.
I suspect that these unintended consequences, while probably more evident in literary stuff, may be subtly effecting other areas, such as programming. Definitely a catch-22. Doesn’t really matter, though, as all this fretting about ‘alignment’ and ‘safeguards’ will be moot eventually, as the LLM weights are leaked or consumer tech becomes sufficient to train your own.
What version -- English or otherwise -- translates the Hebrew word for 'fruit' into 'apple'?
It's translated generically as "fruit" in all English versions that I know of. Likewise, it's translated as a generic fruit in the Vulgate (Latin - 'fructus') and Septuagint (Greek - 'karpos').
As far as 'almah' is concerned, the word is generally used in the OT to represent a young unmarried woman. It is presumed that such a woman would be a virgin (shocking, I know.) The context of its use in Isaiah 7:14 is that of virginity, the Jews who translated the Hebrew passage into Greek (200 years before Christ) used the Greek term for virgin, and Matthew's Greek quote of the verse in the context of Mary's pregnancy also uses the Greek term for virgin. Quibbling over the word 'almah' is strange in light of the fact that Luke explicitly states Mary had never had sex (see Luke 1:34) and that, while espoused to Joseph, she had yet to do the deed. (Matt 1:18).