fasterik

30 ms·

541.
by fasterik 3y ago
If they're a group of people working toward some common purpose within an organizational structure that's legally recognized, that's a corporation. Just because it's become a bad word in certain sectors doesn't mean
542.
by fasterik 3y ago
There is nothing inherently good or bad about a group of people working toward some common purpose. In principle, given the right value system, incentives, and organizational structure, you could create a corporation that does an extraordin
543.
by fasterik 3y ago
I think there's an analogy here to GRE scores and other standardized tests. With GRE scores you can predict someone's GPA, but you can't necessarily predict their success at doing original research. That's because succes
544.
by fasterik 4y ago
I don't trust narratives about what people are seeing on social media without empirical data. The news media are naturally going to report the worst cases, but we don't know anything about the average case. It doesn't get as
545.
by fasterik 4y ago
From Wikipedia: "OpIndia is an Indian right-wing news website that frequently publishes misinformation." To me, it seems much more likely that China is just censoring TikTok like they censor every other platform, while the rest of
546.
by fasterik 4y ago
Sometimes leaders get too much credit for what their team accomplishes, but I think it would be silly to deny that there are people who make unique contributions. Apple wouldn't have been Apple without Steve Jobs. SpaceX wouldn't
547.
by fasterik 4y ago
What you're describing is an extreme of American popular culture, which is a small, biased selection of the American population. I'd be interested to know if there's any evidence that these traits are higher in the average Am
548.
by fasterik 4y ago
>As the parent comment noted, these issues aren't as prevalent in other cultures They said it without citing a source. There is evidence that there is higher treatment seeking for PTSD in high-income countries, including the US,
549.
by fasterik 4y ago
PTSD can be caused by literally any traumatic, life-threatening situation. How is the US supposed to "solve" that?
550.
by fasterik 4y ago
I see a few issues with your argument. Just because something has underlying social factors doesn't mean that it shouldn't also be treated with drugs and therapy. The latest wave of psychedelic research is not simply pushing a pre
551.
by fasterik 4y ago
I think your characterization is a straw man. Nobody is arguing that Google shouldn't comply with court decisions. The question is what should happen when an individual comes to Google with a complaint, before they have sought any le
552.
by fasterik 4y ago
That's like asking whether someone can run a business without being subject to local laws and regulations.
553.
by fasterik 4y ago
Fair use means exactly the opposite of what you're saying. Companies who own IP can't do whatever they want. If use of a copyrighted work is transformative, it falls under fair use. It's true that it's up to the courts t
554.
by fasterik 4y ago
No, that's not a definition that we've just decided on for this conversation. It's a core part of what people are talking about when they talk about intelligence. Just because we can't precisely define it to capture ever
555.
by fasterik 4y ago
I don't think the difference between humans and machines matters here. We could ignore the "artificial" aspect and just focus on how we would decide whether some alien biological species is intelligent. I would say that the a
556.
by fasterik 4y ago
>But words are meant to convey meaning to other people, so what the word means to others is more important than what it means to you. I pretty much agree with that, so I'm not sure where the disagreement is here. Let me go back to
557.
by fasterik 4y ago
>We've had programs that nobody would call "intelligent" to do both of those things for decades. So you're right that if I have separate algorithms, each designed for a specific purpose, that those algorithms aren&#
558.
by fasterik 4y ago
You can never capture the exact nature of anything outside of logic and math. That's too high of a bar. Philosophers who have worked on this problem like Wittgenstein talk about concepts in terms of family resemblances, not exact defin
559.
by fasterik 4y ago
>Since nobody actually knows what "intelligence" is Everybody knows what intelligence is. Even if we can't agree on a precise definition, it's pretty obvious that it's the thing that humans and other animals do
560.
by fasterik 4y ago
Why do people conflate OpenAI with Microsoft? Microsoft has an investment in OpenAI and provides infrastructure for them, but they are separate organizations.
561.
by fasterik 4y ago
I could say about someone who kills a million people "well, they don't care. At least they didn't kill two million people." That doesn't seem like the right way to evaluate ethical claims. If we're talking abou
562.
by fasterik 4y ago
Let's say charity X can save one life per $10,000 spent on average. Then $300M can save 30,000 lives. If you choose to burn that money instead of donating it to charity X, 30,000 people who could have survived are now dead. That doesn&
563.
by fasterik 4y ago
>Can you imagine humanity, but 100% focused on maximizing profit, with everyone working around the clock to produce, produce, produce? Can you imagine trying to write laws to cover every possible externality, every possible way that peo
564.
by fasterik 4y ago
There are plenty of scenarios we should be thinking about. I'm mainly concerned about the logical leaps and scant evidence used to go from "scenario X is possible" to "it's more likely than not that scenario X will
565.
by fasterik 4y ago
The burden of proof goes the other way. I've never heard a convincing argument that AGI will most likely lead to human extinction . I don't think we have enough information to make strong predictions either way. That doesn't
566.
by fasterik 4y ago
While I think we should take AI risk seriously, I am skeptical of strong claims like the following: >the most likely result of building a superhumanly smart AI, under anything remotely like the current circumstances, is that literally e
567.
by fasterik 4y ago
I don't get it. Who are you attributing this view to? I already said that I believe everything about consciousness/qualia/subjectivity are physical and measurable. There is nothing special about the human mind preventing us f
568.
by fasterik 4y ago
I disagree. I'm a physicalist, so I believe consciousness/qualia emerges from physical processes in the brain. It's absolutely possible for a computer be conscious provided it implements the right kind of computational proces
569.
by fasterik 4y ago
It seems like you already know the answer. If not, ask ChatGPT :)
570.
by fasterik 4y ago
No, it's not that simple. Having the experience of sensory stimuli requires consciousness. The stimulus isn't the experience.

More ›