txrx0000

12 ms·

151.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
There are plenty of physical and legal barriers to creating a bioweapon and that's not going to change if everyone becomes smarter with AI. And even if we really somehow end up in a world where everyone has a lab at home and people can
152.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
I'm referring to the current situation. How is it not applicable? I think the government wants to eventually nationalize these companies and we have to stop them.
153.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
I agree. We will need hardware ownership as well eventually. But the earlier you open-source, the more you slow down the centralization because people will be more likely to buy hardware to run stuff at home and that gives hardware companie
154.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
Don't compare general intelligence to bioweapons. A bioweapon cannot defend against or reverse the effects of another bioweapon.
155.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. It will eventually be taken from you by force. It's time to open-source everything. Papers, code, weights, financial records. Do all of your research in the open. Run 100% transparen
156.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
This is why you can't gatekeep AI capabilities. It will eventually be taken from you by force. Open-source everything. Papers, code, weights, financial records. Do all of your research in the open. Run a 100% transparent organization s
157.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
In that case, what survives and forges ahead is probably some kind of human-AI hybrid. The purely digital AIs will want robotic and possibly even biological bodies, while humans (including some of the people here right now) will want more d
158.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
Yeah, I will admit, the existential risk exists either way. And we will need neural interfaces long term if we want to survive. But I think the risk is lower in the distributed scenario because most of the AIs would be aligned with their hu
159.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
I think your scenario is already better, not worse. Those 8 agents will have a much harder time taking action when there are 2 million other pesky little agents that aren't aligned with them.
160.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
We can bank on people acting in self-interest. The nefarious actor will find themselves opposed by millions of others that are not aligned with them, so it would be much more difficult for them to do things. It's like being covered by
161.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
> I have strong signal that Dario, Jared, and Sam would genuinely burn at the stake before acceding to something that's a) against their values, and b) they think is a net negative in the long term. (Many others, too, they're j
162.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
I don't think the cost has been doing down or will continue to trend downward long term. You're assuming that the public hasn't gained and won't gain additional capabilities while our adversaries evolve. But look at our
163.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
We don't need everyone to be completely anonymous to state and corporate actors. We just need to make it so that they can't identify and surveil everyone at once, because it would be too expensive. The US defense budget is about $
164.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
Do you want culture to be frozen and instant digital communication with anyone else in the world to become a privilege of the few? Because that's where "clean" leads. And all you get is a little bit of temporary safety. Here&
165.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
Anthropic is not on the side of the people. None of these companies are. They've made it clear that they want to gatekeep LLM capabilities. https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... These com
166.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
The "normies" aren't as dumb as people on here think they are. There are plenty of side channels to activate normies. The reason good leaders don't seem to seek out leadership positions anymore is because they have the I
167.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
> We are literally sending a request to our government's server to sign You've already lost. You're at the government's mercy. They can simply refuse to sign. "Mr. John Smith, we noticed you've published som
168.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
Kumbaya is also a form of self-interest. We're still very much self-interested, it's just that we can see a tiny bit further into the future and realize that we need to better our surroundings in order to live the life we want.
169.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
There is hope. It's not only possible, but it is likely and is already underway. DNS can be replaced. IPv4/v6 can be replaced. We just need to build a layer on top that ignores the access controls of the underlying layer (the Inte
170.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
I make this argument to neutralize the "protect the children" excuse and also delegitimize the age verification "solution" by pointing out that on-device settings are more effective and easier to implement yet rarely dis
171.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
I'll spell it out for you since you can't read between the lines. It's not actually about fire-keeping in tribes to protect children. It's about certain people (governments, corporations, organizations) wanting control o
172.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
> I just like, can't help but start with fuck these companies. All other arguments are downstream of that. Better the nanny state than Nanny Zuck. How about we reject all institutional nannies? It is much easier to implement user-co
173.
by txrx0000 8mo ago
It's much easier to give individual users control over their own device than to give a centralized authority control over what happens on everyone's device over the Internet. Local user-controlled toggles are just easier to implem
174.
Ask HN: Why would you downvote without replying?
7 points by txrx0000 11mo ago|10 comments
175.
by txrx0000 11mo ago
Right now, using web portals is indeed better than installing apps, but this does not have be the case. In fact, it should be the other way around. You only need to make two changes to make your native app a better choice than your web port
176.
by txrx0000 11mo ago
The natural progression of this technology is probably miniaturized transducer arrays on a chip, which would enable non-invasive write access to the entire brain. This kind of tech should be developed as open-source projects, even for the f
177.
by txrx0000 11mo ago
If someone puts a donate button beside their name or in the corner of their webpage, and that button leads to a payment page, I think that's good enough. The point of paying creators is so that they can focus on creating content instea
178.
by txrx0000 11mo ago
I'm not saying humans can have every property in existence, but we do have consciousness, and that might be one thing computers can't have.
179.
by txrx0000 11mo ago
We could normalize paying content creators directly. So instead of paywalls or ads, we get "donate" buttons.
180.
by txrx0000 11mo ago
There's some chance LLMs contain representations of whatever's in the brain that's responsible for consciousness. The text it's trained on was written by humans, and all humans have one thing in common if nothing else. A

More ›