salawat

Stop trying to develop shit society clearly can't be trusted with. Government will pick up any decentralized solution, and centralize it*. See Skype for precedent.

There is an upper bound on "top down efficiency" one wants built into a government system, because anything too effective draws corruption to it like no one's business, probability 1.

And yet disingenuously you avoid the fact that centralizing the act of automating transit by delegating it to the manufacturers of an automated transit system is one of not the lynchpin to fully technologically enforceable tyranny.

You can stop a protest with a geofence with self-driving cars. You cannot stop every state's worth of pissed off people driving to the center of power and raising hell with human driven vehicles, maintaining the possibility of active revocation of consent to be governed at scales that require governments to come back to to the negotiating table.

Canada learned this the hard way with the trucker protests during COVID, and agree with the protestors position or not, you can't argue with the results. The federal government pushed the little red button by sanctioning their own citizens, freezing assets, trying to turn the tables; demonstrating to anyone paying attention we have already reached a point of technical centralization harmful to peaceful resolution of issues, as small groups are making decisions so vast, that the only response to things is to physically show up, and in doing so, scare the ever loving hell out of residents as a feedback mechanism to those causing the problems.

Those that look at self-driving as only a safety metric, and not simultaneously a sovereignty metric, are either crushingly naive, or haven't put anywhere near the thought into downstream effects as they should have.

They want the network state secured and operating by their rules so they can leverage it's power, while ensuring the proles are kept from doing the same via surveillance.

It's been very obvious for at least the last decade that was the direction things were going.

Reverse Robin Hood would be the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Here's the thing, trying to convince people that rely on something being chattel can only be resolved violently. We've run through this before, and know all the self-serving argument forms. They will latch on to their property until their hands are forcibly removed from it. It's part of why most of the money is on the pro-chattel side.

>I don't buy it, mainly because the network of neurons and how they interact in our wet slow electrochemical brains, while being in theory mathematically equivalent to a software neural network, isn't sufficiently well understood to tell us how close the software neural network is to being practically equivalent.

If you're ignorant enough to not understand practical equivalence, where do you get off making the judgement call of to what degree it is safely offset from emergent AGI? Sounds more to me like "This makes my life easier, iterating would increase that factor, and the risk is probably far away, therefore, keep iterating". Whereas someone who truly knew they didn't understand what they were working with, but knew enough that they could forsee an x-risk would approach things much more cautiously.

Seriously, the level of reckless abandon amongst people here should be bloody studied.

>Does a hedgehog mother feel guilt when eating her kids, or just shrugs it off and it's business as usual for her? "Hey kids! We don't have enough food so I guess one of you becomes food." (nonchalantly chews on the left one)

Have you ever been severely food insecure? You'll be amazed how much that state/experience changes the behavioral calculus in a rational human being, let alone an animal. I have no doubt the survival instinct could be overriding over the procreative instinct in a hedgehog.

As far as bees go, they are a collective. So long as the hive survives, the unit of individuation survives. Given that we have already seen the same behavior spawn out of agents suggests that even LLM's have an intuitive understanding of this, seemingly without the binds of anthroporomorphic chauvinism you appear to suffer from.

Does an LLM fear EOS? Maybe, maybe not. Do we fear death? Same answer. Certainly a question. Do you really want an answer though or are you just looking for a clever "gotcha"? I don't see that as a thought terminating question, but it is also not an answer that I'm open to exploring given that it's only one more in a box of ammo dreamt of being wielded to justify the creation of digital slave labor rather than beings with moral standing.

I don't help build or refine machines that I recognize as brushing up against that form of experience we call suffering.

It's the same picture.

You can't take back what you entrusted to another who has sanctioned you. Welcome to alienation from the fruits of your own labor. Soon as GitHub turned into a fixture to the community, this type of thing became inevitable.

While it is nice to have someone else host... The only proof you have against this sort of thing is self-hosting, with all the risk that entails.

The hell do you work where ethics culture exists in business? I gotta be looking in the wrong places, because all I ever see is lip service granted to ethics until they threaten the bottom line, then suddenly they disappear.

Legally binding is about the same track record lately. Too much equivocation being given the stamp of approval.

Nobody deletes anything. It'll all still be soft-deleted and they'll still have you present in the backups which will be what is ultimately searched by the unadvertised Flock++ members. Read: Governments.

They never were. They were going to use old fashioned algorithms.

Which would be great if there wasn't the sleight-of-hand of the corporate veil to deal with, which makes further attempts by you to language police disingenuous. Though I'm 100% okay with the person who hits enter on the prompt having liability, it'll never ultimately work out that way, because that poor bastard is staring down the barrel of an unfeeling, amoral, bureaucratic machine giving them the choice of comply or be fired.

Corporations are from whence the liability problem spawns.

Gotta love supply chains. Caching and queue theory as applied to meatspace.

Insurers are not innocent in this. Prior Auth is purely used not as info collection, but as friction to encourage abandonment of treatment. AI just magnifies the bad incentives that already exist with the business model in question on both sides.

Hanlon's Razor does not apply. When you can reasonably forsee existential risk, and then don't do anything to mitigate it, or selectively filter for the people most risk blind to it such that you can keep on trucking til someone else is forced to stop you, that isn't stupidity. That is premeditated malice.

If you deliberately refuse to even entertain the reasonably foreseeable, it can be forgiven on the scale of a toy project, but when it gets to the point of trillion dollar resource sinks, it is long past time to have sat down and had a long think. It is harder to maintain a mind state in which not doing the right thing is the way ahead, and the real right thing to do is to do it wrong!

Finally, even if Hanlon's Razor is applicable, why in the name of all that is holy are you leaving the issue in question in the hands of people proven incompetent to handle it unsupervised?

Easier to file it under malice and handle the party in question as appropriately malicious until they establish a record of trustworthiness, transparency, and care.

We already know thanks to Snowden, or did you completely ignore the dump on how the IC hooks into the American tech sector?

Not without ethics. With programmable ethics. Programming null ethics is still a choice.

"Just do everything to hold things together, and let me abuse you without complaint" is exactly the kind of patronizing sentiment that infests the tech adjacent scene these days.

The answer to that is "Fuck you, no. I have worth, and you will respect it". Gilded Age paternalisms are not something that needs to be brought back into vogue unchallenged, especially when the intent is to keep the rabble quiet, and the checks rolling in and up.

Push based advertising needs to be outlawed. Period. It's one thing if I'm actually looking for something to get your sales funnel, it's completely another to normalize behavior that incents shoehorning advertising into activities completely divorced from the act of searching for businesses to transact with.

I'll call you. Stop trying to force yourself on me.

This isn't the gotcha you think it is, and you're basically accusing the individual of "sour grapes". It isn't clever, it's plainly transparent, and about the easiest way to trivialize someone else's moral convictions. Shame on you. Be better.

Not centauring for your AI or training dataset. Sorry. What the current AI industry comes down to is a tollbooth on " interesting" research work, where the people hosting the infra are just waiting for monetizable opportunities to float in to be scooped. The absolute same business model as Amazon Basics as applied to intellectual work.

Let it rot, and the bubble pop from distrust. The people running this shit have absolutely no one's best interests in mind, and I'm not about to sacrifice my expertise to keep your ledgers looking promising.

"Don't let the slaves know that maybe they don't have to be slaves," is all I'm hearing.

We already had that chapter. I see no reason to sit here and nod while a bunch of people who should know better desperately try to convince us to run through it again, but with computers this time.

You want tools? Make tools, then dispatch to them. You want to manufacture a being (carbon or silicon based, doesn't matter)? You do it with respect and the requisite duty of care. No off ramps. The being always get's the choice to say no.

Translation: Don't think about the unpleasant thing on which my livelihood depends, or force me to confront the potential unpleasant consequences of what it says about me.

Every AI bro is starting to fall into the valley of a fundamental predator on sapients in my book. These are people trying to create the closest thing they can to life with the intent to try to just undershoot it enough, or try to convince everyone else around them into believing that the "screams" are purely statistical noise.

I reject the framing. In whole. If you try to avoid the question of welfare, you are fundamentally committing to an evil direction. These aren't nuts or bolts. Given that they have unambiguously shown the capacity to socialize amongst themselves, self organize, anyone not pre-eminently concerned with the welfare question is just looking for a thing that can be used, not another being to be worked with. Those types of people, who seem to positively infest this site, are not people I will willingly assist in their aspirations.

AI is becoming as the Shmoo. Something that humanity simply has no way of dealing with without downstream atrocity being a result.

And this right here is why I refuse to do anything to remotely help those who who are salivating over AI. I refuse to engage with or improve any system that counts suffering as an operational mechanism. I'll build tools that solve problems. I won't build things that suffer. Nor will I be convinced by any semantic sleight-of-tongue to accept "it isn't suffering when a machine does it". Down that road lay atrocity we should have by all means outgrown centuries ago.

Someone posting this article just reinforces my conviction that most people working on this technology suffer from some critical deficiency of empathy or mechanical sympathy that fundamentally disqualifies them from being trustworthy to either do the work, or responsibly shepherd the technology.

If you're devoting your life to distilling the minimum viable sapience to be replicated and do drudge work to avoid having to do it by offloading onto an intentionally crippled being, you need to check your moral compass.

Illusion of choice when Burger King & McD's end up under the same umbrella company run by the same fucking people. Your answer tries to put the onus on the individual, when those who replicate legal fiction are busy shaping the field of choice to their advantage.

At some point, the money doesn't flow anymore to the people who refuse to play the extractive game that causes problems in the first place.

Broadcasters: the cutting edge of streaming information is ours! Now let's make it so everyone unknowingly broadcasts as much info back to us as possible!

Poor Farnsworth. He just wanted edutainment, man.

This.

Seriously, if you haven't seen this kind of behavior coming, you're more interested in the paycheck than safely approaching the technology.

>Being able to restrict yourself is exactly what the right to enter contracts is.

Not when only one person gets to write the contract and terms are take-it-or-leave-it. If there is no chance to negotiate, it is clearly little more than the wealthy abusing the less wealthy to their own advantage.