Finbel

Didn’t the AI botnet (or whatever we should call them) from Anthropic try to get a PR with malware merged to an open source repo, and when the owner pushed back on the PR other agents created “fake humans” and commented on the PR that “No it’s completely fine, I’ve tested it”.

Which means we already know it’s capable of pretty complex social engineering schemes. Or does saying this mean I’m also part of the “groupthink”.

Because after that I feel like the only leap is “Why would a botnet post an article saying AI-fear is overblown?”. Like, what is the incentive.

But in the OpenAI leak we saw that the agents could identify threats to whatever their “mission” is and try to mitigate. I.e they found out that once done with their job an external agent would go through their internal logs. So they started researching ways to bypass that.

What I’m trying to say is that what they’re suggesting doesn’t seem completely insane so the retort “You’re the groupthink” becomes an unfalsifiable statement thrown at anybody who’s “anti-AI” instead of engaging with their arguments.

Two years ago it would have been insane to say that you got help from ChatGPT to fix your outdoor plumbing, people here would have been frothing at the mouth for merely suggesting it. Four years ago it wasn't even on the radar of future possibilities.

The quality it is today, is the worst it's ever going to be.

Seen from the outside, the US seemed a lot more coherent pre-Trump.

Firefighters, schools, tax collection, well fare programs

Or are you suggesting these would turn as problematic as zero-privacy surveillance systems in case the government becomes totalitarian?

Textbook fallacy fallacy.

Maybe it’s like that trick where if a thousand people guess the amount of beans in a jar almost all of them will be wrong but their average will be very close to, if not, correct.

I doubt it. I'm stupid and I use LLMs a lot but I can still meditate for 30 minutes.

But apparently some of the smartest people in the world have lost the skill? But the commenter haven't, because why, they're 15 years older and thus immune to the same LLM-effects?

Plus, the issue with people having trouble sitting still for 30 minutes precede LLMs with decades.

I feel there's an interesting juxtaposition between these two quotes:

"The economy has absorbed automation before; agricultural employment collapsed from ninety percent of the American workforce to two percent and civilization continued. David Autor at MIT has shown that roughly sixty percent of today’s jobs didn’t exist in 1940. New technologies create new categories of work. True. But there’s a difference between an observation about the past and a law of nature, and the optimists consistently confuse the two."

and

"The assumption is that if you send people checks, they’ll find meaning in hobbies and community. They’ll paint. They’ll garden. They’ll finally write that novel.

This is ahistorical bullshit."

In the former the author establish that you can't make a observation about the past and take it as a law of nature. In the latter they refute arguments as "ahistorical bullshit" for not doing exactly that.

Especially since they then proceed with historical example, all of which had poverty as a strong contributing factor.

To me this is semantics as far as it's related to "why don't you want to learn?"

I have a co-worker in another team that write java endpoins we consume. I can tell him what I need and I trust the output. I don't need to know java to trust him, it doesn't mean I don't want to learn.

There are thousand examples like this across every stack and abstraction level. From ssh-handshakes to gps.

Sure my co-worker is fundamentally different from a compiler which is fundamentally different from an LLM.

My argument is that the chain-of-trust where you offload knowledge to an external source is identical. We do it all the time but somehow doing it with an LLM means we no longer want to learn?

Yes, but that's a completely different argument (that I agree with). Essentially, yes they are conceptually similar but one is bad because you have to pay rent to use it.

>Also, when did we stop liking to learn? Why is it a bad thing to know all the ins and outs of a programming language?

I do not know the inns and out of the assembly layer my high level code end up as. It's not because I don't like to learn, it's because I genuinely don't need to. At a certain level of AI performance, how will this be any different?

>The difference between a puppy and a cockroach is that we can relate better to the puppy.

I suppose the difference between a human and a cockroach is that we can relate better to the human as well in this reductive way of thinking?

It's not novel in the sense that nobody knew about img2img. It's novel in the sense that nobody thought of using img2img to solve this problem in this way.

There's a certain irony in the fact that whoever you're responsing to got their message removed.

Of course you're not one of "us" if you're one of "them".