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
> and if it's easier to identify it's easier to control and implement bias reduction mechanisms.
Nobody does this.
For the vast, vast, vast majority of employers using AI in hiring, it's even too much to ask for them to set the temperature to 0 to ensure they have consistent reproduceable output.
They're just slinging shit into a completely unaccountable chain of LLMs. Even when explicitly told not to, random workers still just go against company policy and chuck the resume into ChatGPT because they're too lazy to write an email.
The reality of hiring right now is that it's a shitshow both ways. LLMs trained on all the vile racism 4chan and reddit could muster, then given "pls make diverse founding fathers" system prompts. EVERYBODY loses.
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 think the acknowledgement of danger by various companies is definitely a marketing tactic to a degree, and it's important to see the actions of those companies for what they are.
But then there's whatever danger actually exists regardless of the business maneuvering.
I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but I've been in numerous discussions where where someone will point to this maneuvering and then conclude that virtually all danger is manufactured/nonexistent and only exists for marketing purposes.
> eg. AI being presented to the public as self directed artificial consciousness rather than algorithms that mimic certain reasoning capabilities
I think the fact that these tools can be presented in that way and some people will believe it points to some of the real dangers.
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
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've never heard anyone insist on there being no peace talks, only that there be no peace talks that don't involve Ukraine. I think most people who support Ukraine are worried about Trump conducting peace talks with Russia, excluding Ukraine from those peace talks, and then coming to some kind of deal that involves Russia keeping the land they've annexed.
It's like that "Myth of Consensual Sex" meme with the two teenagers and Jesus. Isn't there somebody (Ukraine) you forgot to ask?
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 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.
Getting cash used to be a royal PITA. Not that I need much cash these days but it used to mean going out at lunch during bank hours and waiting in line.
