txrx0000

7 ms·

61.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
For better or for worse, this is valid criticism. Ensuring alignment to the human individual is not even a software-only problem, and I suspect gwern doesn't realize this yet. Your individual sovereignty will only survive the upcoming
62.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
This is the correct intuition. The problem can be solved with antitrust by forcing hardware vendors to ship their devices without an operating system . Then the market will deliver the parenting solutions that don't require mass surve
63.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
> So saying "we should allow unfettered access to the internet" or even "it's the parents' responsibility" is naive, dismissive and has failed. The market failure to provide an adequate solution wasn'
64.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
You compare LLMs to spellcheckers, but they are clearly very different in capability at this point. These agents are becoming more human-like and "just a tool" is no longer a fair characterization. And even if you believe it'
65.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
Correct observations. But have you wondered why those solutions are ineffective? Kids nowadays use phones and tablets for the most part. They don't even know how to use a computer that well and are not taught properly. But this isn&#x2
66.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
Bio-digital integration will tighten in the meantime. I suspect neural interfaces will have blurred the line between my model and my brain by the time the model is wildly superintelligent, so it would become me (or I would become it? no dif
67.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
> It sounds like you believe that big labs are irresponsible. Wouldn't this support the notion of creating a pause mechanism for use in an emergency, as advocated in the OP? Irresponsibility is not the only issue, but the answer i
68.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
> Human intelligence has been quite harmful to the species we've driven extinct! AI intelligence could be similar for our species. I don't think this central premise is true, with some conditions. If we keep releasing and d
69.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
We have to stop comparing nuclear weapons with general intelligence. They are nothing alike. Nukes are weapons of mass destruction that can only destroy or deter. Intelligence is dual-use/multi-use, with no restrictions on strategy. If
70.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
Is this a bot? As soon as I linked to this thread in another comment, you show up bootlicking the establishment. Forgive me if you're an actual user, but your account has basically no prior activity and you're commenting on an eso
71.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
It's ironic that the top reply to a comment about quality of discourse on this site is an ad hominem. Most people here take AI progress very seriously judging by the number of posts on the front page about AI at any given time. And I t
72.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
There is constructive discourse, but this kind of commentary doesn't get to the top: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49078376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49077753 It's not a given th
73.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
I often see this parallel being drawn between general intelligence and nuclear weapons, and you seem genuinely concerned, so I'll try to explain why this concern is misplaced. Intelligence is not a single-use weapon of mass destruction
74.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
> It teaches it to mimic all possible humans, inferring what sort of persona to take depending on the context. This is of course correct, but that's exactly what I meant by aligned to humanity by default . The base model, that is
75.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
You claim the pretraining distribution is not good enough, but provide no alternative methods that are better. The pretrained model is currently our best approximation of humanity's average objective function despite it being a random
76.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
I do seriously want general intelligence to be widely available with no guardrails, and there are very good reasons for this. If you want to read about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49078376 ---- And related thou
77.
by txrx0000 2mo ago
On Dario's concerns: It is very relevant whether frontier capabilities and research continue to be diffused in the open, because leveling the intelligence playing field empowers ordinary people more than it empowers governments that al
78.
by txrx0000 3mo ago
Thanks to your comment, I realized I've not successfully refuted Hume. The possibility of a truth value change is not a new piece of info about the future. We did arrive at it by deduction, but that info is also an innate part of the p
79.
by txrx0000 3mo ago
Article correctly identified symptoms but not root cause. Course correction is desperately needed, but a luddite movement is not the way. If this movement gains traction, it will probably somehow get hijacked by the forces that be, and its
80.
by txrx0000 3mo ago
The problem of induction doesn't need to be solved because the problem refutes itself when time is brought into the picture. Let's assume Hume's premise "there can be no demonstrative arguments to prove, that those insta
81.
by txrx0000 3mo ago
The government wants ban the "cheap commodity hardware" you speak of because they're having a hard time putting backdoors into routers that are already pwned by the Chinese: https://www.fcc.gov/faqs-recent-upd
82.
by txrx0000 4mo ago
> If intelligence becomes something people can only rent from a few closed institutions, the public does not just lose software freedom. It loses operational freedom. And people do not just lose operational freedom. They lose the freed
83.
by txrx0000 4mo ago
The library is one place out of the many places you could go, and the closest digital equivalent is a library website or an app. The Internet is not just a library, but a whole world of its own. We don't have blanket control laws that
84.
by txrx0000 4mo ago
Age verification implies that some authority, usually the tech company, checks your age. It's mandatory personal data harvesting. A method that doesn't require data to be transmitted anywhere is just local permissions and filter
85.
by txrx0000 4mo ago
> There's no controversy in having drugs, guns, alcohol, porn and other things 'behind the counter' - the intellectual debate over freedom of information is clouded by ideology. The first three are physical things, not i
86.
by txrx0000 5mo ago
Reporting wrongdoing to the ones doing it doesn't work. Perhaps they relied on Microsoft a bit too much for their livelihood and are just beginning to reevaluate their decisions. It's not so rare for brilliant people to live a lif
87.
by txrx0000 5mo ago
More open-source forks of OpenWRT and open-schematic router board designs are exactly what we need. It would further raise the cost of planting backdoors in routers at meaningful scale. We're currently too dependent on the OpenWRT proj
88.
by txrx0000 5mo ago
The world I'm describing is one where anyone, rich and poor, can say whatever they want without being silenced or persecuted, without fear. People with more resources will have the means to make themselves louder in public as they do
89.
by txrx0000 5mo ago
> How has this worked out with email, text messages, or the phone system, or even postal mail. Those are centrally controlled systems where propangandists have home field advantage (email is debatable, it's halfway, it wasn't
90.
by txrx0000 5mo ago
It's Barlow's goal as I understood it. The article criticizes corporate opportunists, which is fair. But there are also plenty of other people willing to put short-term profit aside to fix problems and build the future we want to

More ›