vivekd

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous.

First you don't know what the parents political leaning is. They may be conservative, they may also just as likely be liberal It's foolish to assume their political leanings from just one post just because you disagree with them.

Second they're not saying that in groups or open AI should not be bound by the law. They're saying open AI did not actually break the law. You're free to disagree and explain why you disagree. That would be welcome. But calling them a conservative and saying they think the rich shouldn't be bound by the law is ridiculous

I mean Egyptians and Sumerians were some of the longest lasting dynasties and they were extremely regressive and exclusionary. They had a small wealthy elite and lots of poor subjects. Feudalism, humanity's most common and enduring economic system was built around inequity, privilege for the few and repression.

Assyrians were extremely successful and they would commit random murder of their subject population.

I guess you can hold a mirror to just modern civilization and say western civilization... If you forget the racism and sexism of the 20th century... Which leaves the current society and if you're saying the society you live in is the most enlightened and progressive well I mean that sounds like the definition of bias

I don't trust either of them to be honest, which is why I want the actual deal released to the opposition party so that the parliamentary system can function as intended

I wasn't able to go look up the deal. Please explain to me - because last I checked it was being kept confidential by Carney's party while the opposition party is asking for it to be released

in all cases? Really. That seems more like a trusim that people often blindly repeat than something that's actually supported by facts.

I can see how Islam being designed as a state religion can be tied to power structures. Perhaps there is an argument that Hinduism supported feudal social structures. Other than that, the idea that religion is closely tied to power structures seems to be questionable and weakly supported. Was shamanic belief tied to the power of chiefs in ancient tribes? I don't think so. Buddha was a prince but it seems tenuous to say that buddhist monks somehow supported royal power in the East. I could go on. . .

I keep reading about these things in the news, and they are nice marketing stance. But I still wonder how far we are away from humanoid robots being commonplace in every day life. I don't share the fear some seem to have towards robots, just because a world filled with robots was something I dreamed of as kid. But I still wonder about the cost and feasibility of robot police officers, or cashiers etc.

As a Canadian, I would caution against the kind of universal health plan we have. But yes I agree there should be some kind of public healthcare. Perhaps more as a government owned hospitals and clinics alongside the private ones rather than the fully public system we have here which comes with its own host of problems.

I think it's easy to shout free healthcare as a slogan but I think the important bit is how it's implemented.

I don't know how convinced I am. First there were dinosaurs in the past, the brachiosaurus was 4 x as big as an elephant and there are probably yet undiscovered dinosaurs that were even bigger given discovery of partial fossils like the Sauroposeidon.

Also we know in the past there were dargonflys with wingspans greater than 2 feet and centipedes that grew as long as a car.

Construction is always boom and bust by nature. Anyone in the trades, if they have an opportunity the should just take it while it's there.

I agree. Although the author didn't delve into it he seems to hint that it may not prove useful enough to the companies that spend money on tokens to justify the huge investments in AI. For me yes, it's very useful. But what remains to be seen is is it useful to the entities and people willing and able to spend huge amounts of money in AI in exchange for increased productivity or profit... And if so is it useful to generate a cash return on the huge cost investments in datacenters that AI demands

>Find us a person who honestly believes there a class of citizens (other than convicted felons, minors, and mentally incompetent) shouldn't have a right to vote who doesn't want to use it for political gains.

Easy the philosophers Plato and Socrates who believed that only philosophers and those who sought wisdom should have a say in the affairs of the sate. I mean philosophy is full of ideas of how nations should be organized and it's interesting because there's no dogma around it and no villainizing disagreements

>e "nipping dangerous ideas in the bud" language relates to those ideas being implemented, not being discussed.

Great because last I checked Tobais Lutke was discussing the idea not implementing it

I disagree. I don't think there's any historical data showing a correlation between loss of voting rights of a % of the population with totalitarianism. I think among the few countries where it has been tried would be Canada stripping Japanese of voting rights in WWII. Of course this was bad, but at the same time it doesn't seem to have, at least not in most people's view, turned Canada into a totalitarian states.

In my opinion the real trend towards totalitarianism is inability to talk freely about ideas

It's easy and popular to talk about how important democracy or voting rights are. And that makes it a bit annoying because it deprives the possibility of freely exploring other ideas. There's no possibility of free speech or free exchange of ideas so long as portion of the population thinks we have to immediately nip dangerous ideas in the bud without exploration.

I think the title is inaccurate and a bit inflammatory. He's not advocating stripping most Americans of their voting rights. He's advocating stripping a tiny minority of Americans of their voting rights - specifically the minority of Americans that pay no income tax

I think he had a reasonable point, I don't know if he was mad or not but that doesn't take away from the validity of his statement.

Simply saying a confounding variable was missing isn't helpful because it's impossible to control for all confounding variables.

If however there was an important variable someone can think of, like maybe parents who control their kids phone use could also be more involved in their children's learning that could be a confounding variable worth mentioning to think about how valid the study is - but even then I don't know if that by itself would be enough to dismiss the study

It was compulsory during COVID and it became optional later

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArriveCAN

but I think the parents counterpoint was that the important parts of the internet (paying bills, buying things, registering for classes) don't require or presuppose anonymity.

Sure, but looking at this from a purely business perspective - I wonder how many customers would panic or jump ship rather than be grateful when notified of an attack. But I think it could work as an optional feature for paid accounts if it was marketed properly

I don't think any system can do much if things have degraded to the point where armed gangs are running around with impunity. I think systems (paper or otherwise) presuppose a certain level of functional civil society

I think the benefit here is that bias is easier to identify in an AI and if it's easier to identify it's easier to control and implement bias reduction mechanisms. Humans are much less upfront about their biases

I believe your statement can be 100% true without affecting the truth of the parents statement. It's possible for a government to charge high taxes and have high social spending while also funneling larger and larger amounts from the poor to the rich through regulations and government agencies that favor and act for the interests of the rich.

My issue with this line of thinking is not that it's wrong but it's being manipulated by silicon valley.

Open AI is not arguing that AI is harmless they are agreeing it's dangerous. They are using that to promote their product and hype it up as world changing. But more worrying they're advocating for regulations, presumably the sort that would make it more difficult for competition to come in.

I think we can talk about the potential dangers of AI. But that should include a discussion on how to best deal with that and consciousness of how fear of AI might be manipulated by silicon valley.

Especially when that fear involves misrepresentation - eg. AI being presented to the public as self directed artificial consciousness rather than algorithms that mimic certain reasoning capabilities

I also find it's a great sanity check. Ideas that seem good in my head often fail when I put them into words. Especially when I outline it in step by step format

I wonder if there is a practical test of this question? Are there any moderately successful blogs written purely by an LLM with a human just doing the prompts.

As far as I know there aren't any but I look forward to being corrected

That would be a reasonable I objection if it looked as if there was a risk of that. Everything I've heard from Zelynski so far tells me that Ukraine will be involved and they will have the final say

I think we can have peace talks - like what is happening. Or if we believe Russia is too great a threat we can have all out war against Russia involving NATO. Both those outcomes would be acceptable.

What is not acceptable to me is the current status quo of Ukraine and only Ukrainian lives being lost while the rest of the world funds it with money and weapons while insisting there must be no peace talks

I donno I like AI, I don't use it often but when I do I've found it useful and impressive. It's really improved quality of life when it comes to having something to read over my work or help with finding small bits of info. I also like self checkout because this it reduced wait times at the store.

I think people are always resistant to change. People didn't like ATMs when they first came out either. I think it's improved things.

chat GPT and Gemini both provide advice on how to care for babies. I think in the end you have to have faith in people to also use their common sense, discretion and not blindly believe or act on everything a bot tells them.

I think the same is true for an AI giving religious advice - you have to exercise a bit of faith in the readership and, perhaps in this case , also faith in the ultimate guidance of the divine. Faith that they're not going to make serious mortal or religious decision by unquestioningly following a chatbot

If we take this thinking to its logical conclusion we should put all our efforts as a civilization to getting rid of all misinformation that may harm babies whether online or spoken. And every religious person should do nothing but have flame wars and censorship campaigns about any flase religious information that has any chance of affecting a person's salvation.

The author seems to be in a purity spiral and seems to be taking an overly hardline interpretation of the religion

you can just google scrupulosity or scrupulouness and find writing on it by various apologetics.

In religious communities we would call such an attitude scrupulosity. It refers to a sort of religious OCD, a paralyzing fixation on the rules and a demand for unrealistic standards of perfection.

According to Christian teaching, such an attitude comes from a lack of faith. A lack of belief that God is ultimately in control, and an understanding that for all the imperfections and flaws that we as humans inevitably bring to the table, god can still work through those imperfections.

I mean if a book or a peice of writing can be divinely inspired I don't see why am llm can't. Both are pieces of technology at the end of the day