AI wouldn't have antagonists with comparable capabilities? Why?
Also, no, individuals are not a problem. Not after Nazis, Red Khmer, and Russians.
142 karma · joined April 17, 2023
PS. To the Americans among you, the 50 Cent thing isn't really true; see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Previously (as "trasz", "trasz2", spot the pattern) banned for pointing out that HN tolerates racism, and that they are lying about their moderation policies.
Also, no, individuals are not a problem. Not after Nazis, Red Khmer, and Russians.
Not praying as often as one should is considered immoral too. But "immorality" is not binary, and abortion tends to be quite low on the scale. Especially early abortion, which is specific to one particular branch of Christianity.
>Abortion “rights” arises from a belief system
The same one that got us other human rights, like freedom of speech. It's called humanism. It's different from religions by not being made up.
Also, note the "life from conception" fringe is a relatively recent invention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_o.... Protestantism generally kept the old beliefs instead of adapting the new idea.
There's your problem - you're illiterate on that subject and are not willing to learn due to cognitive dissonance, probably because of your preexisting fringe beliefs. It's no different from being a flat earther.
Like the harm being done over the past couple of decades by economic neoliberalism destroying markets all over the western world? I wonder how did we manage to achieve that without AI?
Because from what I've seen, however you define "super intelligence", there are eg highly organised groups of people that are way closer to meeting that definition than any known software or technology.
In case of Russia there's a new factor in that those weapons might not even be operable anymore.
And then there's the theoretical possibility of designing a thermonuclear device without the A-bomb part. I remember skimming through a paper from someone from CERN about it; https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf is the guy, but I'm not sure that's the exact paper.
Why? I mean, why does it sound more plausible to you that it ever could, when we have countless examples of models lying (or rather hallucinating)?
But I feel like this article is about something else. We don't think in terms of words, we think in terms of phrases, and when we remember those phrases it's not just their literal meaning, but also the context, and this can include the accent they were heard in.
In the ideal world we'd just play the sample that we have in the head, but we don't have that yet.
Main part of Google's business is selling infrastructure for that SEO junk, AdWords et al. Sure, you meant the _other_ SEO junk, but from AI point of view both would be noise to be separated from actual content.
So neither could generate the plugin, it's just that one of them lied about it.
Not really. The click rate is iirc usually around 5%; I'm not convinced this is much higher than the "noise floor" generated by a human equivalent of drunk racoons. So in practice Google is being paid for displays.
The inverse is true - people continue using Google products despite being aware that they are spying on them. Doing it outright won't make them suddenly start caring.
As to how - many ways, some of them really creative. One that I remember was an account that's reposting stuff that I genuinely liked, some left-wing activist content, and only now and then they would push something different, like a message about how this one time brand X turned out to be crap during a manifa.
Why do you assume not being explicitly paid by Google means not being part of Google's marketing strategy?
Google's whole business model is getting people to do work for free ("produce content") by making them believe they are doing something else.
That's just an attempt to prevent technical colonisation. An analogy would be Japan and China trying to fence off missionaries. Protestantism was about something different: decentralisation. And in that regard there's no difference between Google and their competitors - it's all strictly centralised; nothing Protestant about it.
Having properly Open Source models would be protestant. And EU regulations should help it happen by reducing the incentives for centralised ones.
Makes one wonder if it's actually representative of the whole gen Z, or just some specific western subset.
Why a mad scientist and not a mad junkie? Or just some clueless language model, artificial or not? I think we tend to make this assumption that things that seem complicated _are_ complicated, and not just random bs, and that assumption no longer holds.
>E.g., I don’t at all understand the linkage between current events and the schism between the Catholic Church and Protestants denoms.
Hadn't read it, but let me guess, is it about how Gutenberg changed the society's interconnection fabric, and it triggered Thirty Year's War, and the same fabric remodeling thing is happening right now? :)
Indeed.
> if only because it would be stupid and reckless not to
Not really, even if it was somehow proven.
> the only value HN has to YC is the good will of the community.
That's called a brand, and other brands do fine despite lying to their customers. In fact it's often considered a core part of business.
But there's no transparency, so there's no reason to assume it's true and not just the usual corporate PR.
Might want to learn the difference between terms "industry" and "science".