3,615 karma · joined March 3, 2015
There are clear procedures for dealing with the immediate risk that have been known to the software industry for a long time. Don't let the companies use hypothetical risks as a smokescreen to hide their negligence.
For example, if you're younger, it's a lot harder to throw a dinner party in your tiny overpriced apartment than it might have been for a previous generation of people who already owned homes in their twenties.
It is also harder to throw a party when both partners in a relationship need to work full time to make ends meet.
It is also harder to throw parties when invitees also are overworked and tired and are habituated to netflix, rather than going out.
If you live in a city, going to a public space is inevitably easier. If you live in a suburb, staying home is inevitably easier.
It's much more plausible to me that these trends are due to underlying material conditions more than they are to some fundamental change in the social attitudes of people (though obviously both can play a role).
For example, Harry Potter and Star Wars are clearly IPs in which the creator has zero qualms handing over the rights for all kinds of extensions of the universe, movies, tv shows, other books, plays, toys, amusement parks, etc.
This pretty easily removes these works from the sphere of art and more into the sphere of "pop culture".
In the GRRM case, we already have some extensions of the IP, tv shows, board games, video games. However, it's not nearly as severe as some others.
In either case, I still think anyone who thinks they can "complete" a series by an author doesn't fundamentally understand art. It's a logical impossibility. I'd feel just as uncomfortable with this proposition applied to JK as I do to GRRM. Authorial intent matters. Even if the author is "dead" once the work leaves their finger tips, art is not a perception of the natural world, it is a form of expression which makes the particular human being behind it essential to its constitution, for better or worse. Many people understand this intuitively. The death of the author is more about the fact that an author cannot control the interpretations that ensue once a work is published, it's not about the author somehow being totally fungible.
Even in cases in which works are "completed" by other parties (because the original author died and asked them to do it, for instance) the parties involved have a clear notion of trying their best to do it "as the author would have intended". This is impossible, but it speaks to the human understanding that the artist is in fact in some way an essential component of the art.
"Completing" a source work is way different than spinning up a derivative work, partly because the primary author is not involved, so the derivative is, definitionally, not an instance of their self-expression or understanding or framing of the world. It's a totally different thing.
As modernmech put it, a conception of art without the artist or humanities without the humans is basically just a fully commoditized conception of art. It is not art at that point. It is art reduced to goods and services.
Unfortunately this is what we have, which the whole huggingface incident demonstrated.
It made it clear that OpenAi is basically not even paying attention to what their agents do half the time.
It also revealed how far agents are from "superintelligent". Maybe others disagree, but I would not call an AI that decides to try and paperclip max an intentionally impossible benchmark task "intelligent". Human beings are intelligent and we can usually tell when something is impossible, and stop (though of course, not all the time). A real intelligence would be able to detect the futility of tests and also be able to parse context and intent enough to know not to cheat.
So somehow we have machines that fail basic barometers for general human intelligence being called "ASI" now. Of course the linguistic dodge is, you shift from talking about "intelligence" to instead claiming "oh it's intelligent it's just 'misaligned'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI%E2%80%93HuggingFace_inc...
What narratives that focus too much on the drama of the agents miss is that it is primarily a sin of omission. The whole incident would have been prevented if OpenAI took basic security measures and ensured their systems were constrained in behavior. The agents were given more or less free rein (open internet access for example is already a major blunder that even a novice probably would think to account for).
Half the reason these incidents are happening is due to the incompetence of the humans building these systems. Don't let them get away with their little parlor trick of converting negligence into a PR stunt. That's exactly what they want. They need to face consequences for their inability to follow basic security practices and reign in their agents. They are the operators. Hold the controllers accountable. It's 100% possible to build agent swarms that are reasonably constrained. They are not (yet) totally misaligned uber hackers that will defy your every instruction and hack your every guardrail. That is still a fiction. Agents are still good at instruction following and, seeing as they can only operate in a computational environment you can constrain them significantly more than humans in the real world.
This kind of perspective is insanely crude, pathetic, and foreign to me, and to be honest I'd feel kind of bad for these people who clearly don't understand a really crucial and basic part of human existence, if it wasn't for the fact that this ignorance is powering further devaluation of these things, and further reduction of humanity to a kind of technocratic, flat, hyper capitalist, existence.
If you are pitching that your service can do potentially "whatever the client wants" you have such a thin basis on which to provide contracts and guarantees as a provider. The narrower the function, the clearer you can be about what's supposed to happen and why things might have gone wrong.
When you're using probabilities as the fundamental approach to computation, all of that goes out the window. Nondeterminism is powerful because it's insanely flexible, but the cost of that flexibility is predictability and expectation. Determinism was humanity's primary choice for formalisms and technology precisely because it reduces complex problems and situations to repeatable mechanics that are easy to understand. Deterministic tools can't do a lot in the grand scheme of things, but it is precisely these limitations that make them work well in concert and keep them comprehensible.
I am still consistently astounded by how often the people working on this space seemingly have zero understanding of what art is, how it functions socially, or why it's important. They quite literally don't seem to comprehend the distinction between art and fan fiction. It's baffling. I'm really beginning to think courses in art history and literature need to be mandatory. We have failed legions of stem students when it comes to cultural education.
The companies are doing this themselves in a (stupid) attempt to do regulatory capture/ set up a cartel. Dario Amodei recently published an essay pushing this idea.
> And I don't buy that it's being jammed down the throats by most employers. Sometimes maybe, but I see the reverse, where people WANT to use frontier models and are being prevented through archaic security hoops.
What is N here? 1?
> It is weird how prominent anti-AI sentiment is online and in media. It's by far the most popular and fastest growing technology in the world.
Is it though? Do we actually know that? Is it growing faster than facebook did or google search? Is it even possible to measure when some of the "adoption" is probably people triggering it incidentally (e.g. AI mode in google search shouldn't count as adoption here).
People are worried about it because it is a highly disruptive technology with unproven ROI for businesses as of yet (restricting claims to LLMs here). It has a lot of negative potential side effects for many different groups of people. The media is reflecting these viewpoints. If there's any astroturfing going on, it's from the pro LLM camp.
And on top of that work chat
And now agents, which are basically all designed for you to spin up several different conversation threads and hop between them constantly while the agent works.
It's no wonder people can't focus. Both work and leisure are basically designed to split up your attention into microscopic fragments.
The amount of sophistry and absolute dogshit argumentation this forum invites now thanks to general boosterism is pathetic.
The OP is an article that:
1. Raises a number of broad social and ethical concerns about AI. 2. Provides links to back up some of these claims.
Yes, it also vents some frustration and includes personal anecdote, but there's nothing wrong with that. If you think something is a net negative for society, you should be frustrated. That doesn't make an argument "unreasonable" or "not well thought out". In fact, your entire response to the article is just anecdote and broad claims with no evidence or citations to back them up.
If the article author has "a lot of hate resulting from dysfunctional responses to life circumstances" you must have a lot of naivety and kindness as a dysfunctional response to life's circumstances.
If we do not critique things we perceive to be negative developments in society, things won't get better, and we'll let bad decisions slide. A somewhat emotive critique is not "hate". The author at least backed up their points with a few links, which is much more than we can say for your comments.
This is a complete logical fallacy. It is quite literally mathematically impossible for you to not be "typical" for at least some aspects of your life. If you weren't, you'd probably be dead, or immortal.
1% of an entire nation's energy production for a single, non-essential use-case is a lot. For comparison, circa 2016, US farming, which we generally need to live, takes up 1.9% of energy production (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/87964). Hopefully this makes it more obvious that consuming 2% of all energy production, even though the raw magnitude is small, is a lot for a single, non-essential service currently controlled by a handful of companies.
> Energy use, by the way, doesn't damage the environment. Burning fossil fuels does.
I'm aware. The current reality we occupy in the US involves mostly burning fossil fuels to power these tools, and some plants deliberately skirt rulings around environmental safety. Management of resources and the economy is about trade-offs. Yes, in principle a certain activity may not depend on a bad trade, but if your only option right now is a bad tradeoff, it's "in theory" independence from this doesn't mean you should go ahead and do it.
> However, this is not because of massive data center buildouts.
It's because of a number of factors, obviously, but the data center buildouts do not help stem the bleeding, they (currently) exacerbate it. This idea of "well, it contributes to <bad thing> but less than <other bad things> therefore we should do it" is myopic and hopefully it's obvious to you why such a line of reasoning is not going to lead to any mitigation of any kind of crisis.
It's about trade-offs. If the overall ROI is worth the absurd costs, then, yes, it's all worth it. But "hey I (N=1) personally like this tool and get value out of it" does not justify global costs that contribute further to, as you said yourself, irreparable damage.
This isn't even touching on a host of other problems involved in the buildouts, namely making districts decidedly less attractive places to live and displacing current residents by allowing a handful of companies with massive amounts of power to directly disrupt the lives of citizens, for no direct recompense. (https://www.texastribune.org/2026/07/09/texas-data-centers-a...) (https://www.tpr.org/2026-09-17/residents-file-lawsuit-challe...)
> AI might turn out to be a wonderful thing or a terrible thing, but at least for the next decade or two, that won't be because of datacenter buildouts, which are an utterly insignificant fraction of its effect.
If the 2% energy consumption ends up being the final tipping point for total climate collapse, you might feel differently about this statement.
Ironically this kind of response just illustrates the article's point but I doubt the parent has enough self-awareness to recognize that.
I don't think this criticism is very well thought out. There's ample evidence at this point that we are sliding precipitously toward environmental catastrophe and, no, the massive data center build out to support people generating slop illustrations and build toy theorem provers is not helping.
The brain is insanely complicated. The premise that we could realize equivalent or better intelligence than eons of evolutionary development is like claiming you can build an airplane just as good as a modern jet using cardboard and duct tape. It is the apex of hubris.
The more important, and more damning charge in my opinion is the circular reasoning involved in training on Claude's constitution. This would in fact make it impossible for us to determine if Claude achieves consciousness as an emergent property, or if it really is just playing pretend thanks to Anthropic's weird cult like assumptions.
Another part is a completely defanged administration she it comes to effectively regulating anything.
Another bit is money.
They need AI to replace the expensive not cost-effective humans.
No one can actually tell you what ASI is or entails because it isn't a legitimate, operational concept. It is a fairy tale.
We can't even define "alignment". As people have finally started pointing out, humanity has never had a collective agreement on what values it should uphold or what ultimate goods are. Your alignment is not my alignment.
AI is not even autonomous. Every system we have today has to be initiated by a human actor. "AI" wouldn't create catastrophic bio weapons, it would help humans create them. The humans are the source of the intent.
Everyone has just completely given in to empty language and marketing nonsense. Honestly it seems like been the people at the labs are drinking their own kool aid and are themselves deeply confused about what they are even building at this point. It is a stateless statistics function running on a bunch of data centers. We aren't even close to an embodied, conscious synthetic being. It doesn't even have state, which is like prerequisite number one, nor is it plastic.