TalkingCodeMonk

and to think there are still people who consider MAGA a mental illness.

1) Who created the systems that generated the "synthetic" data? It didn't materialize out of the ether like magic... By definition, all data that exists in our information systems is human-generated, whether it be a description of a dog, a video of a dog, or audio of a dog, to physics/math, and everything in between.

2) Even if you concluded that this "synthetic" data were not derived by man, do you think it's possible to drown out and override all human-related correlations (mimicry) without training on many orders of magnitude more "synthetic" data?

I have kept coming to the same conclusion about the vast majority of so called "experts", technologists, and HN users since the AI bubble began. It feels like nobody has bothered to develop even a rudimentary understanding of statistical learning; even people who work in the field have a questionable understanding.

The fact that everyone's surprised every time a statistical model TRAINED ENTIRELY ON HUMAN GENERATED DATA (including all the junk, bias, propaganda, lies, and disinformation) acts and mimics human behavior, including our worst traits — then considers this evidence that they are intelligent — should be setting off alarm bells for everyone. Nothing about their actions should be surprising beyond the glaring ignorance of our entire species. The phrase "I am far too stupid to be this much smarter than average" is a recurring theme.

Now we are letting these mimics loose in meatspace by integrating them into physical robots, that will develop themselves, and manufacture themselves... and you realize that the terminator timeline is actually a cautionary tale of MIC incompetence, and we don't need to achieve anything near AGI or super-intelligence to annihilate our entire civilization or all life on earth.

Not really.

"Different actors with different credentials in different contexts"

The argument is that the military or police have a need for access to guns, whereas the lunatic on the street corner (or any random citizen) does not. The same argument applies for access to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons... or autonomous hacking/killing machines...

So you believe some false sense of superiority, or extreme paranoia about your perceived enemies, or potential economic success/failure is worth the risk of destroying the planet and civilization?

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy of dogmatic extremism to me. At least we created a lot of value for shareholders for a brief moment in time... before committing the greatest crime in the universe... Planetary genocide!

This is a psychopaths measure of success.

"It's not a lie, if you believe it" — George Costanza

If you genuinely believe there is even a 1% chance that your creation could destroy the planet or civilization, there is no excuse that is not fundamentally deranged and psychotic.

If you can't build it and test it securely, you should not be building it at all. To do it anyway is criminally psychopathic.

This is a strong indicator that Apple's privacy claims are little more than a virtue signal. Network sandboxing an app is arguably the strongest privacy protection measure possible.

This is the strongest oligarchy-washing I've seen in a while. Congrats!

The "something deeply wrong" part about AI, that even most technology enthusiasts evidently do not seem to grasp, is that it is still fundamentally a statistical model — an algorithmic construct — and does not possess any real intelligence or critical thought whatsoever.

No matter how much investors and tech companies want you to believe that they are on the verge of super intelligence, nothing I've seen to date can not easily be explained by "correlation engine", including the "novel" math solutions, all of which appear to just be "a composition of solutions humans have developed and documented elsewhere" upon deeper inspection.

After 9/11 (and long before), the majority of historians and academia warned that the political response to terrorism — the destruction of civil liberties, implementation of mass surveillance, Islamophobia, populism — were a greater threat and risk to our freedoms than the terrorists ever were.

I remember, after the Snowden leaks, when anyone warned that governments could use the patriot act and the various other "intelligence" power grabs to destroy democracy and implement totalitarian dictatorship, they would be deemed insane conspiracy theorists. The hilarious part is most of them (including me) were warning about a distant future... yet it barely took a decade for America to collapse into fascist populism, declare ANTI-FAscists the real terrorists, and turn the surveillance apparatus against them.