invig

6 ms·

31.
by invig 3y ago
Driving is an important form of freedom. The argument that driving is for rich people and the poor should do something else is absurd.
32.
by invig 3y ago
Humans are corrupt.
33.
by invig 3y ago
We have the largest governments in human history. You might as well say "we just need stronger companies" for all the good it does to say better governments would help and remove the indirection.
34.
by invig 3y ago
Amazing to watch some here try and justify another tax that hurts poor people and deprives them of access to opportunity, that doesn't impact rich people.
35.
by invig 3y ago
The web already contains vastly more information than you could ever even begin to read or look at in a lifetime. Most of it is total garbage. You have to use a trust filter to find things worth looking at. You're arguing that there is
36.
by invig 3y ago
Well, extra careful, but we've still got to beat the Russians. We're not going to not beat the Russians over this, so figure it out.
37.
by invig 3y ago
Trying to keep everyone happy is keeping no one happy.
38.
by invig 3y ago
Give up control of what you are consuming at your own peril.
39.
by invig 3y ago
To go deeper on the idea: Seller wants Y, and wants to do work X to pay for Y. Buyer has to want work X. Unless buyer and seller know each other really well, Y doesn't matter to buyer. So by focusing heavily on Y your growth is limited
40.
by invig 3y ago
The sender is trusting that Apple isn’t capturing the message content in the iMessages app after it gets decrypted so it can be shown to the receiver. In a closed system the sender trusts Apple and the person they’re sending to. If you are
41.
by invig 3y ago
Perspective shift, there's an axis of responsibility: Hacker - It's my stuff and I'm responsible for how it works. User - I'm using this and it's the suppliers job to make sure it works. Where you sit on this spectr
42.
by invig 3y ago
"Works on my machine"
43.
by invig 3y ago
As a conflicted board member you would have access to the information, you just wouldn't participate in the conversation / decision making.
44.
by invig 3y ago
I suppose you've invented the perfect character judgement machine that we can also run the safety people through as we figure out who we can trust to "get it right"? If we don't put exactly the "right" humans i
45.
by invig 3y ago
The same is true for anything. It's possible we could stumble into a dragon and unless we've built dragon defences it'll be too late.
46.
by invig 3y ago
This is not just a problem in engineering. Read a news article. Talk to anyone about anything. The lifting that poorly defined abstractions are doing is toxic.
47.
by invig 3y ago
Yes! The AI is trained on human behaviour, it’s a mirror. We’re delusional if we think humans are any better at this. I think we’re also delusional if we think we can define what is true. At best we can give an approximation of what we thin
48.
by invig 3y ago
Isn’t the same thing true of any human who isn’t doing scientific research? Like how much work to get to veracity is actually going on out there?
49.
by invig 3y ago
So the argument is “Our brains can freewheel generative ideation without mistaking our imagination for fact”. When a human thinks it’s able to determine the difference between imagination and fact, but when a human reads words on a screen i
50.
by invig 3y ago
I've attempted to solve this problem. The whole sector is extremely low trust and adversarial, and to be fair they have good reason to be given rampant fraud and their difficult relationships with landlords. It's definitely solvab
51.
by invig 3y ago
Second "creature". I don't see it being different from humans in this regard.
52.
by invig 3y ago
The author clearly thinks that people can't be trusted with what goes into their eyeballs, so we need to control what the eyeballs can see.
53.
by invig 3y ago
WTF are they even trying to say in this article?
54.
by invig 3y ago
<3 So many possibilities have been crushed.
55.
by invig 4y ago
"think on some level the idea of some abstract" This! So much this! These conversations are being held at such a high level of abstraction that they don't make sense. It's one giant "feels" session.
56.
by invig 4y ago
The corporations pay for people to learn how to do this stuff. Eventually, someone will leave and build the open-source version (when it's feasible to do it / the price has come down).
57.
by invig 4y ago
WHAT SAFEGUARDS? "Someone else should come up with something" Like there's someone else out there (who aren't the people making the thing) who has a better idea on how to keep it safe.
58.
by invig 4y ago
In 2035. Maybe we can pause AI development in 2035?
59.
by invig 4y ago
Are there laws preventing people from doing that themselves? If yes, how does a law preventing AI differ from a law preventing a bad act directly?
60.
by invig 4y ago
It's pretty hard to be pro-"safety" on things like social media, news, AI, etc., and then turn around and say with a straight face that infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to be moderated. I long for the net neutrality t

More ›