3 ms·

Exactly. Probably they already started lobbying against selling high end cheap GPUs to the public. No doubt ether going proof of stake is a huge blow to their a

Exactly. Probably they already started lobbying against selling high end cheap GPUs to the public. No doubt ether going proof of stake is a huge blow to their agenda. They can't claim all those GPUs are just wasting energy for crypto mining. Now they have to come up with different arguments. I can already see it. Just think of all the energy wasted training AI at home! I can imagine police drones with IR sensors scanning the cities for the heat signatures of illegal AI "farms". Talking seriously, however they try to spin it, advanced AI (same as every other big scientific/engineering achievement) will be predominantly good. So let's say there is time when AI can create convincing videos of people engaging in various compromising "activities". When this becomes widespread it will give plausible deniability to any potential victim of such attack(with real or deep faked materials) . In a world where any compromising video or picture can be made with anyone, the value of such materials for wannabee blackmailer diminishes rapidly. However, in a world where there is only few entities that can produce such materials and they do so sparingly those entities get a tool that gives them huge power (especially in democracies where popular opinion decides who governs).

trention 4y ago
>advanced AI (same as every other big scientific/engineering achievement) will be predominantly good. They should start teaching the problem of induction in schools, evidently it's needed.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  That's a really convoluted way of saying what amounts to "you're dumb". How about you present a counterargument - why would advanced AI be predominantly bad? Unless, of course, your only counterargument is the classic philosophical statement of "we can't know nuffin".
  - trention 4y ago
    Logical fallacies don't necessarily equal stupidity though sometimes they do. A bunch of arguments about why AI would be bad have already been advanced. For the economic one, refer to Martin Ford. For the existential one, refer to Bostrom.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      Induction is not a logical fallacy, it's a basis for empiricism.
      - trention 4y ago
        It is a logical fallacy, read your Hume.
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        > read your Hume No. Either discuss this with me or don't. Don't summon your sacred scrolls to do the arguing for you. > It is a logical fallacy Instead of just parroting my stance in response, I'll try to elaborate some more. Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all. Logic itself cannot bring you knowledge about the world, as the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit. All knowledge is based on induction, even your knowledge that induction is fallible. Saying induction is a "logical fallacy" doesn't even make sense, since the purpose of induction is not to perform logical operations.
        trention 4y ago
        >Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all. I'll do whatever I want, especially when "communicating" (generous verb) with someone capable of writing the epitome of stupidity "the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit".
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        > I'll do whatever I want What a juvenile attitude. I wasn't giving you orders, I was presenting my standards of communication. You can do whatever the hell you want, but don't expect other people to tolerate your obnoxiousness. You seem to get off on insulting people. I do not get off on being insulted, so I will refrain from further communication with you. Goodbye.
  - benreesman 4y ago
    It is more than a little snarky, but a certain amount of snark is kind of the toll you pay for having PhDs in everything from high-energy physics to behavioral economics on an Internet thread. Basically no one who sticks around on here is “dumb”, I don’t know you but I have a Bayesian prior that you’re probably pretty fucking smart, and GP was being a bit of a smartass, C’est la vie. I completely agree with your game plan of “let’s get a more substantial conversation going here”. It’s the right move. I think that we probably should, as a society, do a serious audit of the public school system curriculum to see if it still makes sense in light of the insane rate of change in the facts of life over the last century :)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

trention 4y ago

>advanced AI (same as every other big scientific/engineering achievement) will be predominantly good. They should start teaching the problem of induction in schools, evidently it's needed.

bheadmaster 4y ago
That's a really convoluted way of saying what amounts to "you're dumb". How about you present a counterargument - why would advanced AI be predominantly bad? Unless, of course, your only counterargument is the classic philosophical statement of "we can't know nuffin".
- trention 4y ago
  Logical fallacies don't necessarily equal stupidity though sometimes they do. A bunch of arguments about why AI would be bad have already been advanced. For the economic one, refer to Martin Ford. For the existential one, refer to Bostrom.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Induction is not a logical fallacy, it's a basis for empiricism.
    - trention 4y ago
      It is a logical fallacy, read your Hume.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        > read your Hume No. Either discuss this with me or don't. Don't summon your sacred scrolls to do the arguing for you. > It is a logical fallacy Instead of just parroting my stance in response, I'll try to elaborate some more. Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all. Logic itself cannot bring you knowledge about the world, as the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit. All knowledge is based on induction, even your knowledge that induction is fallible. Saying induction is a "logical fallacy" doesn't even make sense, since the purpose of induction is not to perform logical operations.
        trention 4y ago
        >Please either follow my example or don't reply to me at all. I'll do whatever I want, especially when "communicating" (generous verb) with someone capable of writing the epitome of stupidity "the concept of apriori knowledge is crackpipe bullshit".
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        > I'll do whatever I want What a juvenile attitude. I wasn't giving you orders, I was presenting my standards of communication. You can do whatever the hell you want, but don't expect other people to tolerate your obnoxiousness. You seem to get off on insulting people. I do not get off on being insulted, so I will refrain from further communication with you. Goodbye.
- benreesman 4y ago
  It is more than a little snarky, but a certain amount of snark is kind of the toll you pay for having PhDs in everything from high-energy physics to behavioral economics on an Internet thread. Basically no one who sticks around on here is “dumb”, I don’t know you but I have a Bayesian prior that you’re probably pretty fucking smart, and GP was being a bit of a smartass, C’est la vie. I completely agree with your game plan of “let’s get a more substantial conversation going here”. It’s the right move. I think that we probably should, as a society, do a serious audit of the public school system curriculum to see if it still makes sense in light of the insane rate of change in the facts of life over the last century :)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]