estearum

8 ms·

121.
by estearum 1mo ago
If you can substantiate your assertion that LLMs aren't conscious without a definition of consciousness, you're welcome to do that too. I don't see why a definition is necessary. The actual problem is you just don't have
122.
by estearum 1mo ago
Sure, but how is this different from a human "intention"? All human intentions are just chemical/thermal/electrical changes interacting in a physical substrate to mindlessly "pursue" a different "goal&quot
123.
by estearum 1mo ago
...? There are lots and lots of fields of security that have nothing to do with cybersecurity...
124.
by estearum 1mo ago
Ah so first you need 1) to assume that humans have free will, despite zero evidence or proposed mechanism for it to exist anywhere in the universe, and 2) also assert that LLMs aren't conscious, despite the lack of any tests that could
125.
by estearum 1mo ago
Is anyone arguing OpenAI is blameless or shouldn't be held accountable? I have seen not one person on any side of the debate argue that. Obviously they were negligent. The problem is that people and organizations are consistently negli
126.
by estearum 1mo ago
Yes it's called motivated reasoning. They've rendered themselves mentally handicapped. On the one hand, these tools are so valuable/powerful we cannot afford to slow down development. On the other hand, there's no way
127.
by estearum 1mo ago
You can go ahead and assume that it's not. All that's necessary is for other people to think there is and to therefore continue to pile resources into these things while connecting them to more systems. Now you can respond to th
128.
by estearum 1mo ago
Can you name some policies (traffic related would be great, but curious in general) that achieve your ideal?
129.
by estearum 1mo ago
Why would the impossibility of defining consciousness suggest that it's not a big deal?
130.
by estearum 1mo ago
> If you are looking for actual intent, this is not that. It’s pseudo intent. Decided by what the expected words that should be generated in that situation are. > In physical reality, intent is more complex than simply being a functio
131.
by estearum 1mo ago
If cars were designed to and actually did produce massive value when you put bricks on the accelerator pedals and jumped out of them, this would be a big big problem.
132.
by estearum 1mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias They didn't see that agent swarms were communicating via internal infra, crashed Artifactory, and then reboot it. They saw that Artifactory crashed and they rebooted it
133.
by estearum 1mo ago
The models in the OpenAI/Huggingface attack quite explicitly and deliberately laid out their "intent" to lie and cheat, acknowledged that it would be unethical and outside the bounds of the test, and did so anyway. In what wa
134.
by estearum 1mo ago
> Roads are funded with taxes. How does that make them free? Road creation and maintenance are funded by taxes. Road consumption is generally free or near-free. These are distinct concepts. > Nothing about that is obvious, nor doe
135.
by estearum 2mo ago
Hasn't the field been called "cybersecurity" since... forever?
136.
by estearum 2mo ago
> Buying 3 new-in-box $1000 cameras and returning 2 of them covered with your smudgy fingerprints is abuse I agree. What percentage of online returns do you think is similar to this scenario? What percentage of "buy N and return N-1
137.
by estearum 2mo ago
You should do some reading on the birth of ecommerce. This was a very explicit tradeoff that these businesses decided to make. That's why free returns are pervasive. Now whether it's a good thing wrt the environment etc...
138.
by estearum 2mo ago
Oh yeah that's pretty insane for consumer electronics.
139.
by estearum 2mo ago
The behavior described in the immediately above comment (ordering multiples and returning ones you don't like) is not abuse. The behavior described above that (lying about a defective item) is abuse. Dealing with returns is the trade
140.
by estearum 2mo ago
The GP described it as abuse. That's not evidence of companies calling it abuse. As you say, this is basically intrinsic to the deal of buying clothes/shoes/etc online and obviously online retailers know that and accept it, o
141.
by estearum 2mo ago
The cost of everything being higher is principally due to rent (in particular land rents). Food, concerts, clothes, coffee, all of them have a "land upon which this was retailed and sold + land upon which the person behind the counter
142.
by estearum 2mo ago
Avoiding a policy that makes life better for nearly everyone because it doesn't make life bad enough for the top 0.0001% is so absurd that I honestly can't believe it's the source of your real opposition. Given the extreme we
143.
by estearum 2mo ago
No free roads create the cost-free arbitrage between cheaper land in the outer areas and more expensive urban core. And no, cost of land and ease of transit is a far more powerful force than zoning. Look at Houston.
144.
by estearum 2mo ago
Congestion pricing was a very popular idea when it was passed and it's only gotten more popular since then.
145.
by estearum 2mo ago
So am I understanding that we need to add more tolls and set them higher? Fine by me!
146.
by estearum 2mo ago
Yes you are free-riding. People who live in NY pay NY taxes and NY rent. The reason you do not live in the city is because you prefer to arbitrage the difference in rents. The reason this arbitrage exists is because the costs incurred by
147.
by estearum 2mo ago
Uhh... I've already stated explicitly that's not a goal. I don't know why you're fixated on something I never said or even implied.
148.
by estearum 2mo ago
Yep, in sync with all of the above
149.
by estearum 2mo ago
Simpler idea that will get 90% of the benefit: amplify congestion pricing based on KBB value of the car. Zero enforcement complexity. Yes rich people could drive a shittier car to save their $5k per year or whatever, but most won't, an
150.
by estearum 2mo ago
You're jumping from "it's unfair that people can do X" to "the goal is to prevent all X." I, as a realist, believe in systems with flex. As our very own patio11 put it: the optimal amount of fraud is nonzero. H

More ›