jprete

39 ms·

661.
by jprete 3y ago
There are already businesses tracking their employees' fitness for insurance purposes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-fitness... EDIT: There's also a national legislative proposal t
662.
by jprete 3y ago
That's not sufficient - it needs to be actually banned for any uses resembling employment purposes, because otherwise people will be easily pressured into it by the incentives of businesses who want their employees to be worker bees. J
663.
by jprete 3y ago
You're describing a system in which the HR bot is worse than useless. If a company intends an HR bot to be relied on by employees, then its words should be legally binding. If the company doesn't intend for employees to rely on th
664.
by jprete 3y ago
As far as I know, being a game dev is not a good career move either for the money or the work-life balance.
665.
by jprete 3y ago
Increasing gravitational force would result in a contracting universe, not an expanding one, I think.
666.
by jprete 3y ago
There's absolutely no sense in talking about OpenAI as a nonprofit at this point. The new board and Altman talk about the governance structure changing, and I strongly believe they will maximize their ability to run it as a for-profit
667.
by jprete 3y ago
The atmosphere is almost the best example of a commons that we have. If a reason for cultivated meat is greenhouse gas emissions, then Italy misses out on virtually none of the benefits by banning it.
668.
by jprete 3y ago
The route to good mental health probably doesn't run through "have an AI girlfriend", though.
669.
by jprete 3y ago
This is 5E's default strategy, but I don't think it works well - it means that the PCs becoming rich will remove, rather than add, gameplay. They won't spend any time thinking about paying for necessities of life, but there w
670.
by jprete 3y ago
But atoms literally get heavier as you go down the table. If the actual elements were ordered in complexity of compounds, hydrogen would be at the bottom of the table, and periodic table posters would have to come with a special “carbon” st
671.
by jprete 3y ago
Interesting. I always thought of cybernetics as robot hands and such, but your description of it is exactly the thing I am most interested in right now.
672.
by jprete 3y ago
I’m curious about your perceptions of the (median) motivations of OpenAI employees - although of course I understand if you don’t feel free to say anything.
673.
by jprete 3y ago
Leading discussions on whether someone should be removed is literally actively working to remove them.
674.
by jprete 3y ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the...
675.
by jprete 3y ago
The board’s fiduciary duties are to the charter of the nonprofit. They have no duty to protect the for-profit-OpenAI’s profits, reputation, or anything else.
676.
by jprete 3y ago
I think most people don’t see it that way. Most people, once their basic physical needs are met, will look for social goods - belonging, relationships, prestige, and sex. Some people are unusually motivated by new experiences and knowledge
677.
by jprete 3y ago
I agree that OpenAI’s mission is probabky bad for humanity. But Microsoft is not a company that would hesitate at replacing a billion people permanently with AI.
678.
by jprete 3y ago
I read a profile recently of an AI consultant for CEOs who mentioned in the interview that the CEOs all want to know when they can lay people off. I really don’t understand how tech people are so spectacularly naive.
679.
by jprete 3y ago
Microsoft wanted to flip a non-profit explicitly founded for the good of humanity into a for-profit implicitly for the good of Microsoft. That’s already a lot of shenanigans.
680.
by jprete 3y ago
In Sam’s shoes, as slippery an operator as I’d be, I’d ask a sympathetic employee to register me as a guest just to make that post, whether there were negotiations or not.
681.
by jprete 3y ago
They represent the charter. That is literally the metric.
682.
by jprete 3y ago
I think a lot of commenters here are treating the nonprofit as if it were a temporary disguise with no other relevance, which OpenAI now intends to shed so it can rake in the profits. Legally this is very much not true, and I’ve read that o
683.
by jprete 3y ago
It depends. If you embed a requirement into the culture and make it clear that people are absolutely required to think about it, at least some people will do so. And because the requirement was so clear up-front, those people have some leve
684.
by jprete 3y ago
Assigning ethics and safety to the AI teams in question is a little like assigning user privacy to advertising analytics teams - responsible AI is in direct conflict with their natural goals and will _never_ get any serious consideration. I
685.
by jprete 3y ago
Is this a way of saying that AI safety is unnecessary?
686.
by jprete 3y ago
I’m presuming it was put into place as part of creating the capped-for-profit entity, to make sure the for-profit couldn’t itself permanently misalign the non-profit’s board.
687.
by jprete 3y ago
You’re right! I presume he materially misled them about lots of small product decisions, and the dev-day announcements were the last straw.
688.
by jprete 3y ago
OpenAI isn’t a business, it’s a non-profit.
689.
by jprete 3y ago
That phrasing is the right one, because the economic value is the part that will involuntarily put people out of work and cause mass societal disruption.
690.
by jprete 3y ago
No, they may literally have not had the votes.

More ›