mimd

I agree. It doesn't make Nolan look good. But he's probably just trying to generate publicity.

I suspect that facebook's contribution to Myanmar was more as a place of organization and evidence of opponents, than the feeds somehow generated most of the zeitgeist to slaughter. It kinda ignores the other causes of zeitgeist/organization and absolves the villains of the affair in doing so. But the idea latched on to some journalist.

The Soviet Union had a semi/automated system for firing if Moscow got blown up before making a decision.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

They're is an air of vanity to the media and researchers who compare AI to nukes. It's sorta like Nolan making a film about Oppenheimer, in the hope to associate with them.

There is none for nukes as it involves the zero sum game of war. Because you'll die if you don't. Russia and Japan were already developing nukes independent of the US, as the theory for nuclear fission was well known. Logic says to fire immediately if you opponent can't, as eventually you'll lose advantage, a scenario that scared the Soviets to whits end, despite the US not doing so. So you either make your defense or be at the whim of your opponent. Being moral and dead isn't a very good outcome is it?

Overall, the history of nukes lends credence to the idea of keeping doors open, to naively and hopefully trying to avoid zero sum games. The US decided against Kyoto to keep Japan postwar. It's willing to go fire the nukes in defense of Japan today. The US didn't annihilate the Soviets post WW2, despite offense. Khrushchev talked an idiot out of nuclear war and a Soviet operator said the sensors were wrong. But it's only something a single side can control, and it's not assured that you won't end up with a cruel or zealous antagonist, who at best will pause to thoughts of their own death, or you need to make pay to have any hope afterwards.

Thanks for the info.

I suspect that's her goal, even if implicit, to take it to the supreme court to get her precedent. It's a poor strategy though, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of her odds and position. The emphasis on the supreme court tends to screw people up. A "vanity" as it were.

She was chosen as a celebrity on the issue, due to her paper and outspokenness, not her technically prowess. A fatal flaw with most political appointees. I suspect some of her supporters in the admin likely hoped she would be less controlling on cases but be dogged in pursuit. But perhaps others thought the opposite. An incompetent zealot, can be a perfect buffer.

The Activision case is a fiasco, it's huge at 75b, there's lots of nice evidence, etc. It upends her core selling points.

The listed items are for last gen CPUs and 2 gen old nics (100 Gb/s). Also zfs rather than ceph. It's hard to consider under those constraints.

Any plans for upgrades beyond single rack deployments and newer gen hardware? And what is the sell case over kube, mesos, or VMware, especially since the hardware and software appear tightly coupled?

This is a loaded topic but it's important to remember that moralities are a collection of ideas and actions, not a single entity, and so you can have improvements but also regressions all occurring at once.

The speech focuses on more than the MIC and he mentions other dangers such as changes to scientific development. The archives.gov page should do more analysis on it. The interests in the MIC lines distorts the underlying message of the speech, which is that the changes the US underwent during Ike's presidency had major risks/failure modes, that though Ike thought necessary and developed vigorously, he would also not be able to help with going forward, and that it would require the American people to guard against those risks. To "Use my work justly."

It only took two years for the US to struggle with the changes he helped bring about, in which a lesser president risked nuclear war to save political face.

Reminds me very much of Johnny's "Can we survive technology?", letter in harper's, written while he was dying.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~kite/doc/von_Neumann_1955.pdf

Ike is also very particular with words and has several other good speeches. I like the "multiplicity of fears" section of his speech in 54.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-new...

This is also an interesting read of Eisenhower's speech's from an Australian student's perspective and also raises details of his presidency that are often forgotten.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Ideal-America(n)%3...

Their in a rough patch but they've had successes in the last 5 years. There is a conservatism in their approach, mostly targeting parents and slice of life scenarios. And some huge misfires such as treating the kid as stupid in inside up. They've had nice elements though, like Trent Reznor's music in soul and 1990's anime echos in turning red. And it's obvious that it's pulling from people's memories, so they are sincere. However, they are leaving better ideas like a jazz fantasia or a true sailor moon style fantasy on the table. Some of this restriction is not just Disney's attempts to segment but also Pixar's marketing as a known commodity. This also likely stunts any real attempts, like lightyear, to go beyond the formula, ie saddled with reference to toy story, etc.

They will also struggle to ever top the original toy story, though. Even though their are little shades of it here and there; mike and sully, finding Nemo, coco, and lightning McQueen's horror at his body failing; they are still not pulling it fully together. I would like one at that level again, but that's a rare thing.

"Post-truth"? What a bloody insult to all the effort it currently takes to fight past all their "truth" to find truth. Makes me start to think it's a less than sincere. At least due to their new signaling marketing slogan to fans, I can now easily identify their lean and possible motive. Tricks ya know, to deal with "truth".

Complaining about google maps and navigation, is a really bad example to say over reliance on technology. What should we be navigating by stars? And most of their quotes aren't even really related to the complexities/strategies to identifying)/reexamining "truth" and dealing with all the unsavory if necessary actors. Larry Rosen is just trying to sell his pop novels to the masses. Michael Graziano's expertise is in cortex and motion, so I don't know what expertise he brings to the table though I suppose it's sincere. Michal Kosinski is at least sorta in the area, but also doesn't support their hypothesis beyond that it's going to have a major effect going forward.

Really, I shouldn't have given them a click.

Noted private-eye "Sam Spade" Sanders is on the case. Chances it results in anything beyond funding for his political groups and some clicks for his media friends...nil.

I wish these investigations were more serious than press releases and dog-and-pony shows with executives. They're so weak, that their witnesses constantly lie to them.

Good and bad are judgments based on our evolutionary goal of survival eventually culminating in some idea of society. Lots of these ideas often become contradictory in the end as morality is to organize society and their are more effective and ineffective strategies to that end. To prevent bad things, make things predictable, that others can be relied on, and so on. But there is no omnipresent law, akin to say math platonism, or the physical laws of our universe. So it doesn't make much sense for an actor in a society to say it might be moral to end the society/species as it's ignoring the purpose of that "morality" in the first place. It is "detached" needing to be based on other "axioms", say "that every rock is sacred". But these are no more universally valid despite people's hope for a ethical platonism, and are potentially an inferior choice for the only objective that matters, continuation of the system (spieces/individual/etc).

In your example, optimizing at all cost to remove suffering ignores that suffering and pain are part of the process of warning in survival and are an inferior objective in the overall goal of survival. Sure you can choose it at all cost, but it's a poor strategy. A greedy algorithm as it were.

To be forthright and to illustrate this line of thought, I responded to you in the hopes that you will understand part of this, and continue to live and keep this system going, as it appears to be a better overall strategy to continue society. Not morality but "strategy". And frankly, from personal preference, it's more interesting than some inky blackness with nothing to do.

You do hit on a point that's often overlooked that a lot of designs of morality start to break down at large timescales of a couple generations. For example, arguing that a bad action in the past seems a bit poor for oneself if it results in the person not existing. How about the countless others that would exists on just minor variations of that history?

Anyway, try to challenge your initial thoughts and see if you come to this or something else. And keep thinking about moral systems at timescales as it's interesting to think about.

You know some of the people actively dismissing them ARE ai researchers? I'd put the ratio 10 to 1 in their favor from meetings and that most of the people panicking are administrator types who over estimate and need to hawk for money.

Their is a stink of ignorance from Bengio and Hinton over what threats are already on the table. They seemed to have blissfully ignored them for their careers. It shows up in their proposed solutions/fears.

It's like bengio complaining about computer science needing ethics as a solution. I did take ethics and I still find his arguments wrong. I would argue that he is overestimating risk and panicking, which will create more damage than good. No, he's just trying to claim some mantel of authority by saying he's the only moral one in the room and castigate his opposition unfairly.

In the parlance of his climate change example, he's al Gore claiming that the world sea levels will rise by 20 feet soon, thereby giving ammo to every climate change denier and turning off anyone who needs convincing.

Question, since your there. How much of this fight is linked to modern fights or Soviet Union era fights in your opinion? Or is this mostly just related to fights over people/remembrance over WW2?

I thought about some interesting quips but you kinda just fell on you own sword.

I gave Chomsky benefit of the doubt several years ago about influence and his position on pol pot, but after more dives on the subject, no, he's unrepentant and petulant. Also you're hero worshipping him by assuming he's one of the "few". He's one of the few you know. And Marxism is heavily intertwined with Communism historically. The distinction is academic only and revolutionaries of the 20th century interchanged them so heavily so as to make it nearly indistinguishable. To ignore it's "implementations" is the "no true Scotsman" at it's finest.

You don't think Chomsky has power? Using your influence to cause others to disregard or advocate for actions can lead to as much death as direct influence. He was activity dismissing reports as "misinformation" for ideological reasons at the time and people took his advice. If it caused people to not act, then yes, he's partially responsible.

No, I don't think he's equivalent, but let's not give him a pass here. His ideology lead to excusing and lauding a group of people who wanted to slaughter anyone with education and reduce anyone else to starving farmers. And he didn't do himself any favors afterwards either, sulking and attacking people who pointed out that moral failing, even circa 2000's.

We tend to trash people for that sorta thing, like we do for Kissinger, but since it's Marxism/Communism it's given a pass by media/left groups. Their are still a lot of puff articles for Chomsky/and his similars every year. The imbalance in how we talk about that era in certain circles is a bit nauseating.

Anyway, the Intercept is trying to obscure their favored ideologies excesses, and reassign blame to their ideological opponents. That's why the intercept is specifically titling it "killing fields" to usurp the other known quantity of the Khmer Rouge's massacres, and focusing exclusively on Kissinger. I've heard way too many people blame solely Kissinger as responsible, as if pol pot did not exist, to give the intercept the benefit of the doubt.

"Hey...hey...hey Bob...look, it's one of those weird surface fish! Let's mess with it!" "Ah good. Needed a new toy. My seal chew toy was getting a bit mushy."

- Bob and Jerry, orca bros

Care to be a bon-bon for them, then? We're looking for volunteers.

More info in these articles. Nice tidbits on design.

https://www.hpcwire.com/2023/05/10/googles-new-ai-focused-a3...

https://www.nextplatform.com/2023/05/11/when-push-comes-to-s...

https://www.nextplatform.com/2023/03/21/inside-the-infrastru...

I see GitHub is working hard to achieve nine fives.

He says he regrets inventing the technology. That statement stinks of arrogance. He gives trite worn examples of negatives while intentionally ignoring the analysis of benefits. He provides nothing new to the conversation and shirks responsibility to provide analysis and work beyond what a scifi writer can do. But, he is risking a panic, risking us into making a reactionary move rather than a move come to by careful thoughtful analysis. All for a bruised ego. He doesn't deserve praise.

Bloody stupid of him, even for his goal of European "third-pole". Pissed off the US, Taiwan, eastern EU, Ukraine, EU gov, Japan, South Korea, all the French citizens in the South Pacific, the list goes on. All at the exactly wrong moment too. Could have just not said anything, took the Americans money and worked towards that "third-pole". But what can you expect from a man whose recent actions could put the French euro-skeptics in power, thereby rendering France not part of that "third-pole". Or, who can't get France's economy to start growing for the first time in ten years due his own self-serving ineptitude, thereby rendering them, the...err, "12th pole" in 50 years and with a retirement age of 96!

An article behind a paywall arguing for a debate? Fantastic. I wonder who will participate and where will it be held? We need more sophistication? I agree. The least "we" could do is to get some champagne and caviar. /s

Thank goodness I don't pay for this sorta of drivel. Pity their audience of gullible New-England brahmins.

"Shut it down" is too strong a quip, but it's more to illustrate that their goals will do something while AGI take over crew is dreaming.

I'm more worried about losses of incentives that fund development or the use of it as gatekeeping that will limit entry. Ie, Europe's plans or getty's lawsuit.

Yes, there is a massive amounts of money, incentive, and mindpower to ward them off. But they're also just mostly letting the doomers run free without pushback. I suppose it could work, if it's to ignore the doomers as they'll make themselves look foolish. But theirs a lot of incentives to attack ai research, from "it will take your jobs", to doing it out of pure spite to hurt tech.

Eg. payments to newspaper's is an example of fairly recent line that had money behind it and partially succeeded. It could get stupid too, such as Australia saying linking needed payment.

Most of the main barrier is fear from US/China about letting the other get the upper hand.

It will be interesting to see how their sales progress after the initial hype period. Some of their contracts to incorporate gpt into products sounded like initial marketing and hype, but perhaps even independent of those, they will make it back with services to bing. But the subdued reaction to gpt4's increase in capabilities means their might be a lack of incentive to pay for improved versions.

DeepMind could no doubt argue the same for openAI failing to play go and to not pursuing protein folding. Their several years behind on that one. :)

Anyway, there have been several open source versions in the gpt3-3.5 range. Those are your base to build off of. Their's just little incentive to try to go participate in a moneysink competition with Google and Microsoft.

It's a stunt now for both companies as it's a proxy for both search, AI capabilities for sale, and clouds. But eventually they will reach a limit of payoff. But 4 months is short for product development, especially as it sounds like google was caught off guard by the public interest in interacting with chatgpt.

It is.

The AGI takeover crew is a bit nauseating. But I sorta understand them considering our daily panics. Sorta a dream of being whisked away by a prince/princess.

But the scared ones are much more organized, and have been at it for a good while now. And they're more of a threat, as they could shut this down for no gain, while the AGI takeover ain't happening with this wave of AI.

Still, I worry about a period in which doctors/lawyers forget their liabilities and decide to consult the great chatgpt oracle. Makes for a wonderful daily fail story. ;)

That's a difficult question. I'm just pointing out that Sam's "contributions" are unhelpful to solving that question.

You're limited by two prisoners and separate, sometimes antagonistic, countries. For example, we have little agreement on nuclear weapons, at best we've gotten concessions on testing, a few types of missiles, and so on. Same with current climate legislation. So getting global agreement is hard outside of the bare minimum. Most of the inner county approaches seem to be either panic, political distraction, or like Sam, regulatory capture, as they are ignoring that it means nothing if another country pursues it.

So I'd focus on what simple agreements we could get worldwide.

Being bored, scared, and on Twitter is a bad combo. I'm mostly down on the current AI, as it's ML leveraging the vast "intelligent" conversations we put out on the internet. It's wheel of fortune and it failed my tests on reasoning miserably, even with the answers in hand. (I'm not going to tell you which tests, because then OpenAI will scrap it and tune their model to claim victory in GPT5. I saw the feathers bricks cheating!). That doesn't mean that these technologies could not do damage, the greatest risk bring hubris in it's capabilities. I wouldn't rely on it's reasoning for launching an ICBM for example. But I suspect that it's contributions/detractions to the workforce will be more muted than thought, as the current use cases seem marginal in cost savings. Ie, HR letters from management time savings using templates versus a AI generated one. But I don't see how we get from a wheel of fortune completer to, in the usual example, an AI whose goal is to eliminate trash by eliminating humans. It's missing components and training necessary to learn those "functions", and their's little incentive to do so. I'd rather have the benefits of understanding protein folding for lifesaving drugs, decreased costs on physics simulations for fusion reactors, and so on, than stagnation due to someone's bad scifi.

That's uncharitable to Bitcoin. Bitcoin was offering a way to mostly anonymously send cash in a verifiable manner, independent of payment processors and govs. That's something useful. Now, it wasn't good because of its inefficiency, it's conflicts with govs, it's tilt towards early buyin, etc.

Getting angry to the point of clouding analysis and judgement is no way to rush into these things.