He / They
Holy crap, $5?
I’ve been looking to do a couple SBC projects recently, but I need/ want something more powerful, so this wouldn’t be in my lane. I do love how cheap edge computing power is becoming, largely thanks to rPi. I’m not a fan of IoT, but I am a fan of sticking little, self-managed computers everywhere!
Hell yes, the awareness against imperialism and capitalism has spread so fast in the past 8 years. Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, Xi, Maduro, and all the other dictators and wannabes, have woken up a lot of people to Leftism as the way forward.
Not every safety control needs to solve every safety issue. Almost all safety controls are narrowly-tailored to one threat model. You’re essentially just arguing that if a safety control doesn’t solve everything, it’s not worth it.
LLMs being a tool that is so widely available is precisely why they need more built-in safety. The more dangerous a tool is, the more likely it is to be restricted to only professional or otherwise licensed users or businesses. Arguing against safety controls being built into LLMs is just going to accelerate their regulation.
Whether you agree with that mentality or not, we live in a Statist world, and protection of its constituent people from themselves and others is the (ostensible) primary function of a State.
But none of that interferes with the use of the tool itself.
But is literally does. If my goal is to use someone else’s gun to kill someone, and the gun has a biometric lock, that absolutely interferes with the use (for unlawful shooting) of the gun.
Wrt AI, if someone’s goal is to use a model that e.g. OpenAI operates, to build a bomb, an external control that prevents it is just as good as the AI model itself having some kind of baked in control.
I will take a different tack than sweng.
You can’t inject programmatic controls.
I think that this is irrelevant. Whether a safety mechanism is intrinsic to the core functioning of something, or bolted on purely for safety purposes, it is still a limiter on that thing’s function, to attempt to compel moral/safe usage.
None of those changes impact the morality of a weapons use in any way.
Any action has 2 different moral aspects:
Of course it is impossible to change the moral intent of an actor. But the LLM is not the actor, it is the tool used by an actor.
And you can absolutely change the morality of the outcome of an action (I.e. said weapon use) by limiting the possible damage from it.
Given that a tool is the means by which the actor attempts to take an action, it is also an appropriate place that safety controls which attempt to enforce a more moral outcome should reside in.
what possible morality can you build into the gun to prevent immoral use?
I mean, there actually are a bunch of things you could do. There are biometric-restricted guns that attempt to ensure only authorized users can fire them. That is a means to prevent immoral use related to a stolen weapon.
The argument for limiting magazine capacity is that it prevents using the gun to kill as many people as you otherwise could with a larger magazine, which is certainly worse, in moral terms.
More relevant to AI, with our current tech you could have a camera on the barrel of a hunting rifle that is running an object recognition algorithm that would only allow the gun to fire if a deer or other legally authorized animal was visible, and not allow it to fire if any non-authorized animals like people were present as well. Obviously hypothetical, but perfectly possible.
There are lots of tools that include technical controls to attempt to prevent misuse, whether intentional or not.
An object doesn’t have to have cognition that it is trying to do something moral, in order to be performing a moral function.
This would literally be my dream.
I’m so nostalgia-driven, I can’t bring myself to play most MMOs because I feel like they’ll die and I’ll losev access to that “world”. If I knew that I could run a private server once the official ones shut down, it would completely change my outlook.
If B didn’t say X can person A sue person B to compel performance of contract or just money back/damages?
Well first, my question more relates to the US Constitution’s 1st Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech from government/public interference, which is why a law could not compel someone to code something, but also, even in contract disputes between private parties, you will only be able to compel Specific Performance (doing an action) if you can show that monetary or other compensatory damages would be unable to properly compensate for the breach, and Specific Performance can never cover “personal obligations” such as continued employment.
If you had already written the code, but refused to turn it over, that might be possible to compel, but if it wasn’t yet written I don’t believe the courts would ever compel you to write that code as a form of compensation for contract breach.
The great thing about eating both is I don’t have to choose
Linux for gaming and dev work. MacOS for creative tools.
These fucking dorks
The robot was quoted as telling the patient, “I like you, Tommy. I’ll kill you last.”
to give them more examples they can correctly point to when they want to discredit you and anything else you say.
We’re about 8 years past this point. They will discredit you with or without you actually saying anything, so limiting your strategy based on the assumption that you’re denying them ammo is nothing but a self-inflicted handicap.
Everyone knows the couch story is made-up, and nothing here suggested otherwise; it’s purely an irreverent jab at a clown who deserves no reverence.
More importantly, (in all seriousness) is that the joke has taken off the way it has because Vance strikes people as the kind of guy who would actually fuck a couch. It’s just believable enough to make you actually check, because of who he is, where anyone else you’d dismiss it outright. It’s not that he’s really a couch-fucker, it’s that he’s a “couch-fucker-esque” guy. Which is almost worse.
And it’s brilliant to exploit that when attacking him.
The link is not just to the video in general, but to the specific timestamp where he makes the reference. There is no original title for that.
Just so excited to share, Walz referenced the couch-sex meme about JD Vance in his introduction speech! xD
Seriously, I feel like a massive weight was lifted off me.
Competition is the natural order of things, a large reason our biosphere exists and is self-sustainable. In the natural world, species and individuals compete with each other to ensure only the most adapted consume the limited resources efficiently. This is natural selection at play. Collaboration/symbiotism is the exception, virtually exclusively where species do not consume ressources.
Whew. There’s a lot to break down with how wrong this is.
First off, the biosphere being self-sustaining has absolutely nothing to do with resource competition. It’s a closed-loop, and has very little matter loss or gain. It is self-sustaining orthogonal to competition, because the most fundamental creatures and systems handle the waste created by higher-order creatures and systems, to break it back down into usable resources. Those processes (e.g. decomposition) are not usually (especially given that 99.99999% take place at the microscopic level) competitive. In fact, those systems are absolutely rife with symbiotic and complementary organisms. But everyone gets hung up on wolves eating deer to go, “see it’s all about competition!” while ignoring how the 20% of the deer that isn’t consumed, and 100% of the wolf after it dies, gets reincorporated into the biomass.
to ensure only the most adapted consume the limited resources efficiently. This is natural selection at play.
This is literally not natural selection. Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with resource consumption, it is purely about the given traits that make one phenotype more successful in a given environment. As already pointed out, it’s a closed-loop, so those resources don’t go away whether they are or aren’t consumed. Many species have, through natural selection, made themselves extinct by being too dominant in an area and killing off their food supply. That is not a “failure” of natural selection, that is natural selection itself. There is also sexual selection, which can go completely against what is most survivable, but is part of Natural Selection.
If literally every creature in the animal Kingdom died off, that would still be Natural Selection functioning properly.
The largest and most enduring myth of natural selection is that it is predictive. It’s a purely post-facto map of how a species progressed, evolutionarily. There is no right or wrong, in natural selection.
Collaboration/symbiotism is the exception, virtually exclusively where species do not consume ressources.
This is also false. Groups of animals working together in packs and other social groups is extremely common in nature. And we’re not talking about humans working with other species, we’re talking about humans working with humans, so I’m not sure why you brought up symbiotism.
In Capitalist economic theory, competition is an important driver of innovation, and a source of bargaining power for labour.
This is a circular argument, because “bargaining power” is another way of saying “ability to compete”, so it is really just saying that “competition is an important driver of the ability to compete”. In a market where labor does not have to compete with other labor for resources, competition adds nothing, and serves no purpose. We’re obviously not in a post-scarcity society, but Capitalism (and unnecessary competition) is certainly driving us in the opposite direction from that. Capitalism throws out millions of pounds of food every day around the world, to prop up food prices. Capitalism plans obsolescence in order to artificially create demand. Capitalism creates cycles of boom and bust because economic equilibrium is anathema to Capitalism.
The argument about driving innovation is also only true in a competitive market, because it’s being done to get a leg up.
Innovation for innovation’s sake, as has happened throughout all of history (including the public funding responsible for many of the modern technologies that you probably erroneously credit market innovation with, e.g. the internet and most medicines), is responsible for much more technology than privately-funded research.
If you want to expose the flaws of capitalism, I would start with unregulated capitalism, which brings antitrust/uncompetitive practices, worker exploitation (usually also because of uncompetitive hiring practices), and myriad issues around income inequality and equity.
unregulated capitalism
So, Capitalism. Anything is, by default, unregulated.
Regulations are, by definition, something that limits the natural function of something. Decreasing water flow through a pipe, decreasing actions that a corporation can take, etc. It’s only a restriction. Adding a speed limiter to a car regulates its top speed. Strapping a rocket on top, while altering the top speed, does not regulate it.
That you have to add limitations in order to make something not bad (i.e. “regulated capitalism”), means that thing is bad in its default state.
[Capitalism without non-Capitalist regulatory limits being imposed] brings antitrust/uncompetitive practices, worker exploitation (usually also because of uncompetitive hiring practices), and myriad issues around income inequality and equity
Yes, I know. This was my argument.
Yup. Ridicule them, but be ready to do more.
This was just a meme for fun, though I do think people overlook just how effective anti-Socialist propaganda and actual political suppression has been in the US in particular.
But yes, I agree that we’re not yet at a place as a society where a Leftist revolution would even occur, much less have a chance at success. Though we are much more aware of that possibility as a society than even just 10 years ago.
I have a lot of opinions about what Lenin did to Marxism. In philosophical terms, I’m a Mutualist. In practical terms, I’m a DemSoc. MLs/Tankies are a peeve of mine because I have a lot of respect for Marx and Engels’ view of an idealized society, and Lenin just shits all over it (whether he intended to or not).
Agree 1000%, which is why the State Capitalists who call themselves Communist piss me off so much (looking at China and Russia).
Sadly, I have no confidence that people will react to authoritarianism/ imperialism/ capitalism/ corporatism in any kind of organized revolutionary movement. I think violent outbursts of despair like suicides and spree murder are more likely (as we’re seeing already), and will just feed the State security apparatus. I think we’re much closer to a real-life Equilibrium, but without the inept state security forces, than we are to another Paris Commune.