martin-t

36 ms·

601.
by martin-t 1y ago
The idea of actual AI being used by governments (or just rich people) to spy on everyone, profile them, shape their ideas through targeted manipulation[0] and eliminate undesirable ones through social (destroying reputation), psychological
602.
by martin-t 1y ago
Current copyright is too strong in terms of length but too weak in terms of derived work. Well, pending some lawsuits, perhaps. What copyright should do is protect individual creators, not corporations. And it should protect them even if th
603.
by martin-t 1y ago
Ever since I learned that my open source work was stolen and is being resold to me (laundered through statistical algorithms) without any credit or compensation, I stopped writing open source. Any copy-left code is basically free to be used
604.
by martin-t 1y ago
So basically instead of doing real work (positive sum games - producing value), everyone has to either: a) invest more and more energy into self-promotion, advertisement, etc. (zero- or negative-sum games) or b) flat out give a part of thei
605.
by martin-t 1y ago
Yes, I meant when working on the same thing (which has a specific value as a whole). If the LLM and its output are based on 10^12 hours of work, out of which 10^6 is working on the code of the LLM itself and 10^12-10^6 (so roughly still 10^
606.
by martin-t 1y ago
As you point out, people make rules ("laws") which benefit them . I care about fairness and justice though, even if I am a minority. Fundamentally, fair compensation is based on the amount of work put in (obviously taking skill&#
607.
by martin-t 1y ago
Humans don't scale. LLMs do. Even if LLMs were actual human-level AI (they are not - by far), a small bunch of rich people could use them to make enormous amounts of money without putting in the enormous amounts of work humans would ha
608.
by martin-t 1y ago
> Personally I like to frame most AI problems by substituting a human (or humans) for the AI. Works pretty well most of the time. Human time is inherently valuable, computer time is not. The issue with LLMs is that they allow doing thing
609.
by martin-t 1y ago
Copyright was codified in an age where plagiarism was time consuming. Even replacing words with synonyms on a mass scale was technically infeasible. The goal of copyright is to make sure people can get fair compensation for the amount of wo
610.
by martin-t 1y ago
Except you can't do it at a massive scale. LLMs both memorize at a scale bigger than thousands, probably millions of humans AND reproduce at an essentially unlimited scale. And who gets the money? Not the original author.
611.
by martin-t 1y ago
As others have pointed out, such algorithms written by amateurs have been demonstrated to work. You also assume people are meticulous in taking precautions and never make mistakes. People whose access to information is restricted (such as b
612.
by martin-t 1y ago
The biggest danger of AI isn't that it will revolt but that it'll allow dictators and other totalitarians complete control over the population. And I mean total. A sufficiently advanced algorithm will be able to find everything a
613.
by martin-t 1y ago
Unfortunately that is way outside too many people's Overton window. And, also unfortunately, I don't think the average human is sufficiently intelligent to understand why he should care.[note 1] Throughout history, we see cycles o
614.
by martin-t 1y ago
Exactly. It's an evolutionarily beneficial trait. We're no longer competing with other species (why social traits developed), we're competing against each other (where the right amount of anti-social traits works best).
615.
by martin-t 1y ago
He's first and foremost a narcissist (strongly grandiose subtype, and all over the place on the communal/malignant axis). That condition should make him ineligible for any position of power. This is what a society gets when it ele
616.
by martin-t 1y ago
You say entrusted like it's some great honor. Teenagers are _used_ in wars because they are easy to manipulate, indoctrinate and control.
617.
by martin-t 1y ago
Off-topic but can we please stop censoring words such as shitting? It disgusts me but at least I understand it on platforms like YouTube which penalize those who don't self-censor but it has no purpose here. I find it worrying how easi
618.
by martin-t 1y ago
> You must live on some fascist oligarchy. Sadly, I am becoming increasingly convinced I do. [1] You're falling for one simple trap. Yes, even if things are (mostly) improving for everyone, they are improving massively faster for th
619.
by martin-t 1y ago
1) You can and should program yourself out of a _task_, not a _job_. How many companies have a one.time need for a programmer? 2) Even if your claim was correct, then you'd amass experience on one job (task) that you could then leverag
620.
by martin-t 1y ago
Almost 15 years in and I feel like I am still just scratching the surface. But most of the lessons learned during that time go towards quality, not quantity or speed. The current trend with LLMs (and eventually maybe AI) seems to be doing w
621.
by martin-t 1y ago
One of the dumbest things a smart person can do is work for an AI company. At best they don't believe actual AI will be created and they are helping a scam. At worst, they are actively working to make their own job redundant and when t
622.
by martin-t 1y ago
So why is compensation zero-sum when the economy is positive-sum and to whom does the difference, the extra value produced, go? Because it certainly does not go to the people doing actual work producing it.
623.
by martin-t 1y ago
> This is definitely a problem but I don't think the only one. Certainly. Planned obsolescence and devices being impossible (or illegal) to repair is another. If a device costs 20% less but lasts only half a long, buyers are losing
624.
by martin-t 1y ago
It might be the obvious solution but is it the right one? People are significantly more productive than say 50 years ago due to technological advancement. So where is all the money going? I am no economist but it is my understanding that al
625.
by martin-t 1y ago
I don't see why not just skip the "representatives" part and have juries vote on laws directly. If you take away the little power people have to influence the government, why not at least do it without adding another layer of
626.
by martin-t 1y ago
Because the people who control the narrative are _redistributors_, not _builders_. Broadly speaking, I divide people into builders and redistributors according to their primary approach to life - not just their job but their belief system -
627.
by martin-t 1y ago
Not just commit contempt, we should punish them. It used to be the case that people valued freedom and the lack of it was something blatantly apparent. When somebody was a slave, it was a very explicit interpersonal relationship which was v
628.
by martin-t 1y ago
This resonates with me deeply. I used to write open source a lot but lately, I don't see the point. Not because I think LLMs can produce novel code as good code as me or will be able to in the near future. But because any time I come u
629.
by martin-t 1y ago
I am not talking about getting it to generate useful output, treating it extra politely or threatening with fines seems to give better results sometimes so why not, I am talking about the phrase "gets it". It does not get anything
630.
by martin-t 1y ago
Honestly can't tell if satire or not.

More ›