mdp2021

> and AI allowing nearly anyone to perform in depth survei[l]lance

Which, as I have said:

-- is a field that has been developed for many decades - automated processing is classical AI. Why should it be now attributed to Sam Altman, whose company mainly does LLMs. If Sam Altman shouts "little risks much reaps", I would not think as surveillance as the first relevant rebuttal.

-- if the peoples do not want surveillance (what awakened them, a large number of places that were supposed to be civilized are cashless societies now), that would be a political matter, from which consequential legislation should be the goal.

Good point - but I would not be able to easily define good obvious universal constraints for the technologies relevant to the submission.

We know you are not an outlier, it is a grave issue that you are not an outlier.

Are the elements in your set aware of what they are doing?

> separating functional states - warts and all - from failed ones

Systemic failure triggers the parasystemic shortcuts. Lack of justice and fairness has grave consequences - they must be curbed with justice and fairness (and their roots) exactly.

--

Any formal objection to the general principle above, current-snipers? Some states are already failed states, where justice is simply not there. At that point, the "at least it is not anarchy" that I myself have heard does not sound right. The reply below from hagbard_c is not sufficient: it is not a matter of slow justice but of clogged justice, and AI is not really relevant here.

> Is that a sentence absent of meaning? Or at least highly misleading.

Do you mean:

> “I wouldn’t take a trade of saying we will make sure there’s no major hacks, there’s no misuse of this technology, there’s zero scams or all the other bad things that will happen because I think that people will do tremendously – orders of magnitude – more good stuff than bad stuff.”

> being subjected to 24/7 surveillance, and having everything he says and does scrutinized for illegal activity, ticketing and jailing him appropriately

That thing has been rising for decades - why should Sam Altman now become the culprit and scapegoat?

That of surveillance and the use of pattern matching is a legislative matter (not e.g. a matter of regulating RnD, which I understand as more relevant to this submission).

"You know there is trouble when reality surpasses fantasy" (~~ Berke Breathed)

We know we are in trouble.

...They do, implicitly? If the "public opinion" changed perspective in either way after such statement, they would have missed the facts.

Have you noticed that you put yourself in the rags and shoes of the dictator, of the yes-men-seeker etc. with your perspective?

Normal people say "Oh, finally, somebody intelligent" when the miracle of apparent intelligence happens.

What about an antidote: "Warren, you will agree with me, because you are intelligent and I am right" (Charlie Munger)?

> cash

How can you presume we do not pay with cash?! How can you remotely suppose one sane mind would not use cash for all sensitive private transactions - books, medicines, preferential (profiling) products etc.?

We use cash in general because nobody in Dignity would accept their own daily matters to be recorded and given to multiple untrusted parties¹, not to mention potentially retrievable by even more untrusted parties - of course the matter is much more evident for all transactions over confidential items!

(¹EU here: 12 public-hybrid-private DBs as per the PSD2 legislation.)

> not falsifiable

Present in a precise analytic statement the theory that I would have advanced and would suffer from that fault. (Btw: we have been past Popper for a long time - but let us see.)

> that's just proof

What I may have said is just that whoever misjudged has faulty judgement - obviously.

> Morality ... by definition

Which definition?

> claims that morality is somehow objective

Decisions are subject to computation in Decision Theory - they are returned by functions and recursively their parameters can be better defined even when apparently subjective (not "I prefer" but "should I prefer". Otherwise, even the final decision, that of the first function call, could be an "I prefer" instead of a "should I prefer").

> circular reasoning

Explain how what you read would be circular reasoning.

> say that those choices were suboptimal

I have not called any specific choice "suboptimal" - I have not judged any specific case (it would be irrelevant here).

--

The statement, allow me to remind you, was: "One's morality is a function of one's intelligence as an ability and as an effort spent to reach general, partial and current moral conclusions - the subject having considered long enough and considering long enough the states in some modal realm (which includes the deontic, not just the aletic) approaches their knowledge". And: "Decision Theory outputs optimal action through evaluation of strategies, of contexts, of principles: in order to properly get the strategies, the contexts, the principles, you need that skill - Intelligence - that approximates ideas to truth. Optimal action decided in light of principles within a well assessed context is ethical behaviour. Ethical behaviour hence requires Intelligence".

> wasted effort

That depends. One thing is following precautions, another the Principles. Precautions may have a limit ("due diligence done, I'll stop there"), Principles do not.

Remember also that many phenomena occur because the individuals in the masses have not said "no". Acceptance enabled them. So the acceptance of some ill conceived systems is criminal - it is what lets them exist.

No, that is really not the point.

"Count the 'r's in the string 'raspberry'" is the same as "Count the joints in the Tasmanian sand spider": it means, "can you instance in idea and assess it and perform procedures over it - for example, can you count?".

We want to be sure it can count. We have seen it may guess, it may construe, it may recall - we instead demand it checks. We cannot trust it without that.

> where I'm opposed to talking to my doctor because the information may be digitally recorded and leaked

Let me say "Hi mate, +1". State doctors? There are territories in which a pharmacological prescription is shared DB only now (where previously they could be on paper - a secret between you, the pen, the paper, the pharmacist and the gods). Private entities? Good luck finding one that does not require a privacy waiver as a condition for the visit. Searching for a medical dock (a dock for a doc), calling them to ask? "This is a recorded message. If you proceed with the call then you agree..." (Hang-up click).

> in the '08 financial crisis ... could have easily been AIs optimizing trading strategies too

??? They were... There are books about the faults in the algorithms that led to the '08 financial crisis.

> pull the plug after it kills people

Are you aware that in this regard "AI" means "all algorithms employed in decision making"?

> currently known as

"Currently known" by whom? The contract is that the "man in the street" does not ask to adhere to its twisted dictionary, and I let it live. When something esoteric in Academia reaches the mainstream news, "Alarm!" and extra care.

["Classical deterministic"] AI is "simulation of intelligence". That it "is" or not is not a problem: the validity of the output counts.

The Discipline of AI is about the relation between computing and intelligence.

A statement about AI [systems] being intelligent or not, or being capable of becoming intelligent or not, requires support.

An «Artificially Intelligent [Entity]» is still an "AI system".

> Not quite sure what all those words mean

What exactly is not clear? I will rephrase.

The internal process of the blackbox oracle determine the reliability of the output.

Two abilities are very different: learning trajectories through empirical training ("increasingly catching thousands of thrown balls"), and determining trajectories through computation (a rational thinker at work). The former is a finetuned parametrized engine (a «NN that learns a skill»), the latter is an Analyst. The former is fuzzy, the second deterministic.

In front of fuzzy LLMs, which use potentially misleading outputs - text ("has it guessed or has it thought?") - the urgency of warranties of reliable output gets evident.

So, that they «simulate cognition [only] well enough» (Intended wrote), and that there are «fundamental limitations of models ... purely text based» (Kooi wrote) raises the urgency to overcome the "fuzzy" and achieve the "deterministic" - it is not that we can stall on a «fundamentally not the right tool for that».

Inventing an oracle calls for urgent striving to overcome the original weakness.

> Read the damn link I shared

I had read it, and it was about one girl who advised a mate about death. The context is not clear, so the reason for the sentence is not clear, and the point you tried to make is not. If it was "some may make you responsible", that does not entail that one actually is.

> People are dying and murdering others

Wake up, people murder people in general through gross stupidity: in front of that LLMs remain not the priority. The priority is that scarcity that makes the quest towards intelligence urgent.

> vulnerable ... cannot always make rational decisions

That cannot be a strong constraint to the normal. Cpr the idea of restricting web access to minors, which easily results in forbidding the access to any real Adult (which will refuse controlled access).

> people would still be alive today

And?! And in front of the phenomenon of mental defect - which covers the majority, not the minority -, you focus on one of the accidents around?

> It is amazing to me that people like you understand that LLMs shouldn't be telling people how to make a bomb, but it is totally fine if it tells some who is suicidal to kill themselves

I have never said that: you are delusional. ...And again, you would focus on LLMs?! Work on yourself, which is your duty, so that you are not the liability for others.

> /ignored

If it means what I suspect it means: do not go around proposing your weak views while refusing rebuttals.

What a lousy summary of the lousiest years.

The antiscientific, ventral, paternalistic-in-democracy (an absurdity) attitude had been systemic.

Now back to the topic.

Endemic in Antananarivo (very many deaths per year), not sure about the rest of Madagascar.

> E.g, a baseball players trains to catch high-speed balls and they dont do it by: "ball velocity 50mph, vector:[1,2,3], run move hand command now"

That is a NN that learns a skill.

But that is not an Analyst. If it were ballistics, then the answer to "how to parametrize the launch to reliably hit the target" excludes getting the result through natural skill.

The problem lies in the need to get "AI" facing "LLMs": the latter create a need for reliability, for "AI".

Speech is an endowment of both those who give educated guesses via developed skills and of those who return answers like Analysts, who check and compute. LLMs create a confusion between the two, and they will remain a problem until an ability to act as Analysts - strictly - will be implemented.

Justify your statement (the other similar post nearby is not sufficient), or realize that we are not talking about that.

We can have adequate representations of light that are the instances over which we reason. Your simile is about perception, not about instancing ideas.

Not the point: the simulated intelligence in this context needs to create proper representation. It is not a matter of what it sees but of what it can see.

I hope you understand: it is a core point that systems that answer questions must have the ability to internally represent the objects they assess in a way that allows reliability. Whatever the object.

In our concepts "giving intelligence" and "creating a liability" are directly opposite. You must be attaching an odd idea to 'intelligence'.

> why you'd do something like this not open source

The project started in 2003 - the market was different then. Curated products of that kind were normal (and an honest linear attempt to finance the endavour).

Careful: the problem is very certainly ___not___ counting letters. That is only a telling way to check "is the NN checking or not?". We demand that NNs for consultancy tasks check, strictly.

Of course there is the obvious point that even rocks are dangerous in the wrong hands, but the note is against the running sketchy idea that the risk would be inherent, instead of derived. People who are afraid of technologies but not of the state of humanity are inconsistent to the supposed awareness of said obvious...

A bernie sanders has seemingly proposed 20 years of jail to anyone who tries to implement Intelligence. You know - that Value of which there is scarcity and dire need.

We have to go on.

> Give an agent intelligence and bad things can happen in unpredictable manners

You must mean the opposite, or something quite different from what you wrote.

Give something intelligence and you will have made a remarkable miracle and you will be thanked forever as the Great Benefactor.

> Why not?

Because to "123x456" we want a reply that goes "this times that plus that...", not "Was that not nnnnnn?". If it does not perform its duty (returning solid checked answers) it is a liability.