sanderjd

I just don't really share the perspective in your first paragraph, which everything else flows from. I mean, that might turn out to be the case, but I don't share the perspective that it is clear that it will be.

I think the HF incident was an example of negligent deployment of a very powerful system, not an example of AIs demonstrating self-interest.

I remain uncertain that AI will have "its own interests". I think there is clear and significant risk in people deploying very powerful systems both maliciously and negligently. But I remain uncertain about the risk of AIs developing their own self awareness and their own interests separate from those of their operators.

Yes. But nobody is talking about taking anybody's land. What's your point?

The specific thing that happened would not have been possible. They might have found a different exploit in the firewall system. But specifically "the package manager can be exploited to send arbitrary requests" problem could have been solved in this obvious way.

It is, in fact, a common kind of economic policy approach, to disincentive rent seeking. This does not apply to labor income, generally.

I still have no clue whatsoever how my comment could have sounded like that paraphrase to you.

I'm very confused what private property you think my comment suggests I do not respect.

Yeah we're literally just rehashing all the same debates.

Why wouldn't you?

Also, you didn't reply to what I wrote, which is that it's funny that you were trying to convince us that land value appreciation is a return to labor. I'm guessing you ditched that because it's obvious how silly it is.

I can't begin to understand what the quoted section you start your comment with has to do with the comment of mine that you replied to. I didn't say anything about any of that stuff...

"I am advocating for Thing and that's Good and Not Politics, but you are advocating for Other-Thing and that's Bad because it is Politics."

You don't get to decide it either. It's decided via politics. But you started the thread by being annoyed with people doing politics. You need to pick a lane.

Your investment in maintenance and improvement of the structure is, in any in-demand area, a tiny contribution to the appreciation of the value of the property.

By "protect it against drastic change", I'm assuming you're talking about political action. That part of your contribution to the value is literal rent seeking.

Nobody is saying it's evil. But the value of your land is also not sacrosanct to the rest of society, nor should it be.

It's really funny to try to frame land value appreciation as a return on labor.

It strikes me that there is something slightly ironic to this point that he's making. It actually is useful for him to persuade the "overly online keyboard warriors" who frequent his writing that they should be focusing on local influence. It seems to me that the real lesson is that if you have a big audience, it is most useful to persuade that audience, but if you don't, it's most useful to work to influence specific people in the right positions.

I've become persuaded that the text of the law requires intent, but I think a lot of people have the intuition (as I did before I saw someone quote the relevant statute) that there would be a negligence standard that this would meet.

It clearly does "smuggle in" consciousness or intelligence. It isn't even smuggled in, it's explicitly in the text of the argument.

I do agree with you that this is the mind killer. This is what everyone wants to argue about, because it's the fun question.

Because, in my view, they are not independent intelligences.

Because firewalls are explicitly designed and audited for this kind of exploit. It would be much more surprising for a mature firewall system to allow unauthorized network access, than that this package management system had an exploit that allowed this escalation of privileges.

This isn't rocket science, this is why firewalls exist, to provide this cross cutting layer of defense.

Yes but that wouldn't have worked if there were a firewall denying network access.

Couldn't agree more. We should be worried about both things.

But I share the original posters bafflement that the mainstream conversation seems to accept that framing that the agents were independent intelligences rather than computer programs that the organization that created them is responsible for.

Oh I see it totally the opposite. The baby isn't asleep when you get on the plane, they fall asleep while you're flying. The time this is most likely to arise is at landing not takeoff.

The point of that paragraph is that it's just not true, in my experience, that all these rules are strictly enforced because they are of Utmost Importance, as a number of you have told me is the case.

I think this is indeed a genuine personality difference. I'm always making decisions about risk tradeoffs and about what battles are worth picking. That doesn't turn off and switch into blind obedience mode the moment I step on an airplane. The tradeoffs do change quite a bit, but they don't go away.

I do think it's notable in this whole discussion that I've never had anything but pleasant interactions with flight attendants. I just don't have this same experience of them as robotic appliers of All Rules, the way you and others seem to be describing them.

I mean that would certainly suck, but if I'm actually out of line, then having the cops meet me is the right move, and if not, I really think prosecutors have better things to do than prosecuting evil baby holders.

Maybe you're right, but I'm skeptical. I've forgotten to buckle my seat belt plenty of times and nobody is standing there to make sure I do it or escorting me off the plane if I don't.

I doubt this. I mean, to begin with, on landing there is no way to "return to the gate". Prior to landing, it seems very plausible that a flight attendant would come by and ask me to take my sleeping baby out. I may make politely decline or make some movements to suggest I'm going to do that, without waking the baby up. It is possible that the flight attendant would then stand there until it actually happens. Maybe, but this seems unlikely to me. My experience is not, in fact, strict enforcement of all these silly rules. Some of them - tray tables and seat backs for instance - yes, others - seat belts and electronic devices for instance - no.

If the flight attendant did stand there, I would probably wait for awhile for them to decide to move on. I would certainly not become angry or loud or aggressive (definitely a bad move). If they really can't let it slide, I'd probably stop being stubborn at that point. But an initial polite "no" seems like a reasonable battle to pick even so.

Yes I know they aren't always great, but they're still people with tough jobs and I don't want to make their lives harder. But we're also all people and I'm very skeptical of this "everyone is a robot who must enforce and comply with silly rules in their entirety" mindset.

I would also not call an animal or an alien a tool. But an "AI agent" is a fancy term for a particular kind of very powerful computer program, it is not a being.

Yes. This. We all - and especially parents - spend all day every day evaluating risks. The FAA does not need to decide for me the level of risk between holding a baby in my arms vs having it in a sling during take off and landing. That's very silly.

I am aware of that, and also would politely reply "no" to being asked to wake my baby up for no good reason. It is extremely unlikely that this would lead to a felony conviction. It would make the flight attendant's life harder, which I would lament, but being politely told "no" by a parent is not the kind of uncooperative disruption that the laws around obedience to flight attendants are designed to avoid. This is not the same kind of problem as running up and down the aisles yelling and being disruptive.

Having said all that, if I thought I could get the baby out of the sling without waking them up, I'd probably try that first though. (I'm pretty sure most flight attendants aren't enforcing this silly rule to begin with, because I'm pretty sure I would have experienced it if they were, I used these slings / carriers all the time, including on planes.)

People are free to write whatever they want on their blogs, and you are free to not read their post or comment about it.

I really don't understand people who accept inconveniences for themselves or for other people without any interest in examining whether those inconveniences are serving any useful purpose. Everything like this should be interrogated. Yes, most things don't matter at all, but we still shouldn't do them if they're dumb. Some things - like this example - matter a bit more. It's not the end of the world, but waking up a sleeping baby can easily ruin the rest of a family's day. If there is a good reason for that, then no biggie, if the reason is nonsensical, then no.