pdonis

10 ms·

151.
by pdonis 4mo ago
The OP said Claude and similar LLMs "exhibit objective, human-like behaviours". That's a claim about what is true, not about what is important. That's the claim I'm disputing: we don't have evidence that Claude
152.
by pdonis 4mo ago
> The post starts by saying that discussing whether they have subjective emotion is a waste of time "Empathy and understanding for the human condition" is not an emotion. As the post I responded to said, it's an objectiv
153.
by pdonis 4mo ago
> Claude is happy, empathic, demonstrates understanding and empathy for the human condition You're assuming that because Claude produces text that appears to express these qualities, Claude must have them. I don't think tha
154.
by pdonis 4mo ago
> I'm unable to see the connection that you're imagining in the original post. The word "bomb" has a particular significance in the context of an airplane full of people who can't escape. If you don't thin
155.
by pdonis 4mo ago
> What if it had been named "Teddy Ruxpin is my friend", but the pilot doesn't know whether that's a secret code for "I'm going to release aerosol sarin nerve gas on the plane"? I'm unable to fin
156.
by pdonis 4mo ago
> The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. And there are other human rights besides the right to free speech, which have to be balanced. One of them is the right to sa
157.
by pdonis 4mo ago
> This is clearly not a threat. To you, who made up the scenario and specified that it's not a threat, sure, it seems that way. To the pilot of an airplane full of people whose safety he is responsible for, even a tiny probability
158.
by pdonis 4mo ago
I was being somewhat sloppy. IBM bought DOS from Microsoft for the IBM PC--but neglected to buy exclusive rights to it, so Microsoft could and did sell it on its own as MS-DOS. (And later, other vendors began selling their own versions.) Fo
159.
by pdonis 4mo ago
> you wouldn't say that having a search engine is totally useless and in no way an improvement over your local library, would you? A search engine that just indexes the web and gives me results is of course a great improvement o
160.
by pdonis 4mo ago
> it's the basic premise of the article Only with respect to some kinds of production. The article is talking about AI replacing "cognitive labor", which it defines rather vaguely. But, for example, the article does not
161.
by pdonis 4mo ago
More users for LibreOffice.
162.
by pdonis 4mo ago
Oops, two of my numbers were off by an order of magnitude: 6 million is 2 in 100, not 2 in 1000, and there are 300,000 people producing food for those 6 million, not 30,000.
163.
by pdonis 4mo ago
Not really. Automation is a tool that amplifies human productivity. It doesn't replace it--humans still have to be involved. AI, it is claimed, will eventually make humans completely unnecessary in the production process. I'll bel
164.
by pdonis 4mo ago
> Do you think they should be left to starve if they did not work for many years? I think that we need to be clear about what's going on. The post I originally responded to in this subthread (which was not by you) said that whethe
165.
by pdonis 4mo ago
Was the pension supposed to be their entire support in retirement? Or were they expected to also put by additional retirement savings on their own? (Note, for example, that the US Social Security system is only supposed to provide about 40%
166.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> The harder you make option 2, the more people will pick option 1. I think you have the options mixed up. Option 1 is voluntary trade. Option 2 is violence. You appear to be saying that people would prefer voluntary trade, but that th
167.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> I am shocked you think letting people starve is OK. I never said any such thing. > The word you are looking for is "revolution" or "uprising" - people will fight for the right to live if you deny them food. I
168.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> a starting point overview Which an unreliable answer is not . > even if some details are off Hallucinations are not a matter of some "details" being off. They are a matter of plausible, confident-sounding claims that
169.
by pdonis 5mo ago
I said the people running the companies, not the people working in them.
170.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> If you don't feed people, they will pick for you. Do you mean they will pick option 2? "Give me food or I'll mess you up?" We have a name for that kind of behavior, and it's not a pretty one. Or might there b
171.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> People can, and do, pool their resources to give to those who have less. Voluntarily, yes. If you want to make my list complete, you can add charity as a third option: if people judge that you're worth helping, they can voluntar
172.
by pdonis 5mo ago
Did they earn the pension by working for many years?
173.
by pdonis 5mo ago
Nothing. That's the problem. The people running these companies say they're among the smartest, most driven people on the planet, the movers and shakers, the ones who are determining the future course of society. So why aren&#x27
174.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> we can give people meaning, community, culture, growth, without relying on employment and money In a world where all of the necessities of life were free--not as in "not having to pay any money for because of some social policy&
175.
by pdonis 5mo ago
That comment struck me as well. One other thing it gets wrong is that the "trillions of dollars" are just numbers in a cap table based on a paper valuation. They're not money that anyone has actually forked over; those number
176.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> Whether or not work is done is completely orthogonal. No, it's not, because food requires work to produce. Someone has to do that work. If you yourself are not one of the people who works to produce the food that we all need, yo
177.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> AI does however help provide many basic services that improve quality of life. Such as? AI can't do my laundry, wash my dishes, clean my house, do my food shopping for me. AI can't care for me if I'm sick. > The m
178.
by pdonis 5mo ago
The fizzling of OS/2 was as much IBM's fault as anything. If they'd paid more attention to it sooner, MS might never have shipped Windows; they'd just have made their office applications OS/2 GUI programs. But IBM w
179.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> every increase in productivity has ALWAYS gone straight to ownership. Which of course means that if you want to capture that upside for yourself, you need to be an owner. The real problem with AI is that it breaks that for programmer
180.
by pdonis 5mo ago
> It's another startup sales pitch. Exactly. And for bonus points, the first part of the article seems to be arguing for the common sense stuff you describe--but then the article suddenly pivots to "use our new shiny tool ins

More ›