stale2002

3 ms·

1.
by stale2002 7d ago
Actually yes there is evidence. The evidence is that we aren't seeing rando models hacking everything. That is as much evidence as someone can provide because, by definition, you can't prove a negative. But the point stands. It
2.
by stale2002 7d ago
> What is your evidence for this? The evidence is that it wasn't the rando normal models that broke out into a swarm and hacked a company, instead it was only the super hacking model that was told to hack things that broke out and h
3.
by stale2002 8d ago
Please be more specific. They were given an impossible hacking task. And they were a hacking model. They were expected to try a bunch of hacking methods to accomplish the hacking task. They, predictably, went around trying to hack thi
4.
by stale2002 8d ago
You are talking about the swarm of a thousand agents, specifically trained on cyber capabilities, that was directly told to go hack a bunch of stuff, then went and hacked a bunch of stuff? That sounds like an aligned AI to me. Doing exactl
5.
by stale2002 8d ago
> When a good is overproduced there are real people being harmed. Its more complicated then that, actually. If you go back to your basic economics 101 text book, a price being outside of the equilibrium price cause total "deadwei
6.
by stale2002 8d ago
> what they were predicting 20 years ago Well one thing that they got wrong was how easy AI alignment ended up being in the end. I can fully understand have a basic view of alignment even 10 years ago, about how its difficult to explain
7.
by stale2002 9d ago
Because people value and care about consumers and regular people over that of large trillion dollar companies. Probably because the trillion dollar companies have enough money and market power and few people are sympathetic to wealthy peop
8.
by stale2002 9d ago
> Why does society have good reasons to subsidize this case? You are asking why courts and society would priority large swaths of regular consumers over that of a few companies in an oligopoly? Well I guess the reason is because the cour
9.
by stale2002 9d ago
Ok, the point stands that our legal system and morals that underpin it have found very good reasons to prioritize consumers for distribution reasons. Thats why the courts value this. This is completely uncontroversial that courts prioriti
10.
by stale2002 10d ago
> Which moral frameworks? Well probably the moral framework that lead to courts prioritizing consumers in the first place, and for society to support that. So a pretty common moral framework that literally got baked into the law. > A
11.
by stale2002 10d ago
Ok thats fine. But the point stands that in many moral frameworks prioritizing consumers is a perfectly good goal and thats why laws were made as such.
12.
by stale2002 11d ago
But really helping consumers is one of the biggest goals here. In fact, our existing ruling on monopoly law actually agree with me on this, in that prices being "too low" is almost never a problem, unless there is very strong reas
13.
by stale2002 11d ago
Because the goal of government policy is to help consumers, thats why.
14.
by stale2002 11d ago
If a person doesn't like where they live, yes they tend to vote with their feet. Thats not different than voting. If everyone flees, then that means that your agenda wasn't popular enough and you should get more support. The sol
15.
by stale2002 12d ago
> Leverage isn't "votes", that's just a preference on a piece of paper. It actually is leverage because those people who get the most votes are in charge of our government. The government monopoly on violence, control
16.
by stale2002 12d ago
> it's just that nobody would invest in training publicly usable models if they could be easily distilled. Thats literally what is happening right now though. People are spending hundreds of millions on a training run, and then peo
17.
by stale2002 12d ago
> Voting only changes things when it doesn’t threaten the interests of elites It absolutely does change things even in those cases. You just voted for the wrong person if they aren't doing what their supporters want.
18.
by stale2002 12d ago
Sounds awesome dude, steal whatever code you want from me. Most of it isn't even truly mine anymore because it all came from an LLM anyway.
19.
by stale2002 13d ago
> "humanity can't be destroyed by anything, because I said so" No, the argument is instead that the person claiming that humanity is going to be destroyed is making a fairly extraordinary claim and that requires fairly ex
20.
by stale2002 13d ago
> nor is it a universal counterargument Its not a counterargument to basically anything, except as to avoid having to deal with actual evidence. It is an argument that seems almost tailor made to have to ignore mountains of evidence agai
21.
by stale2002 14d ago
Awfully convenient isn't it? To invent a whole class of arguments that by definition can't be falsified. You can argue for basically anything if you then tack on the excuse of "Well the world would have ended already if it
22.
by stale2002 14d ago
Yes, there are many parts of those things that some people want to be automated. I and many others are able to execute on our creative vision much fasters and more effectively thanks to automation of that work.
23.
by stale2002 14d ago
The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place. Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemp
24.
by stale2002 15d ago
You are looking at this all wrong. Give him the tools now and watch him be a better game dev today than a professional engineer from 4 years ago. He can work on his dreams as of this exact moment.
25.
by stale2002 16d ago
> you're saying the far-right and far-left terrorist orgs will support each other? I am saying that far left people put out support for what are arguably far right, religious extremist groups yes. The labels of left and right get bl
26.
by stale2002 17d ago
Yeah so I said this: "it involved actual terroristic actions of a variety of groups to sabotage critical infrastructure." I would say that people who are sabotaging powerplants count as being called far left terrorists. And that
27.
by stale2002 17d ago
As I said before, the answer is no I don't go around dress in black or wearing anarchist symbols and getting violent at riots. I do not do that so that would make me not fall under any type of anarchist label like that one.
28.
by stale2002 18d ago
> so not really the line you think you're drawing. It actually is a pretty good line. I am sure there are some edge cases, but the vast majority of designated terrorist organizations did more than enough to deserve being put on tha
29.
by stale2002 18d ago
Supporting actual attacks on shipping lanes, or supporting the russian war, or attacks done by designated terrorist organizations is what I am referring to that some of the hard leftists support. Yes, those things harm the USA, to explicitl
30.
by stale2002 19d ago
Far leftists are quite open about how they think the USA is the evil empire and that Russian, China, Iran, ect are the "multipolar" world that they support. You must be thinking of progressives who merely want free healthcare. Su

More ›