anotherman554

Openai certainly does, they are sending out emails to people using the AI for NSFW roleplay and warning them they'll be banned if they continue. They've also recently updated their API to make it harder to generate NSFW content.

Presumably the arbitration judgement against them can be enforced in plain old ordinary court.

Okay but as far as I know Geoffrey Hinton isn't an "A.I. Alignment Researcher." He was fairly dismissive about the risks of AI in his March 2023 interview and changed his mind by May 2023. I'm not sure that says much about the A.I. Alignment Researcher field.

A more cynical take would be they'll be spending the compute on more mundane engineering problems like making sure the AI doesn't say any naughty words, while calling it "Super Intelligence Alignment Research."

You are confused. In an undergraduate English literature class a student is not expected to come up with a novel interpretation of a well known book in order to pass.

Depending on the assignment you aren't necessarily expected to read anyone else's take on a book and you aren't expected to make sure you are saying something that hasn't been said before or anything like that.

You are simply expected to analyze the book and offer an interpretation.

And it's not like that's the only way to use the AI. With a few minutes of effort, I just got CHATGPT to write an essay using "post-colonial theory" to interpret the Wizard of Oz, which was pretty interesting.

A contract requires an agreement between two parties. I don't see how writing "the content on this blog is not for machine learning purposes" alone shows Google has agreed to your terms.

I'd say it would be good enough to pass an undergraduate class if it was expanded. Did you ever teach a class? I have not but as I understand it you'll have some students that aren't so good at writing, and some that are good. You don't want to discourage the weaker students from growing by giving them F's.

This isn't a field like engineering where there are objective right and wrong answers and anyone dies if you pass the students who are not so great at writing essays on literature.

I didn't ask GPT to describe any particular religion. My prompt was

"As a literary critic, describe how Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is a religious figure."

The divine being contained within I would think would match Buddhism pretty well.

The reference to relics is too vague to pin down to any religion, there's probably lots of examples of it in lots of religions. If I had to defend it off the top if my head I'd compare the Ruby slippers to the "holy moly" herb Athena gives Odysseus to defend him from Circe.

If anything I think GPT went wrong saying strength is one of the virtues associated with the Lion. It would be much easier to focus on courage and say he needs to learn to be like a brave apostle who says things like "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me:"

My point wasn't that this essay was particularly good, necessarily, only that it was was good enough for undergraduate work.

This isn't true and it's odd you believe it.

I just asked Chat GPT 4 to explain the religious significance of the Wizard of Oz as a literary critic. Here's some of what it gave me, it doesn't write anything like you claim it does:

"Moreover, Dorothy's companions -- the Scarecrow seeking a brain (wisdom), the Tin Man seeking a heart (love/compassion), and the Lion seeking courage (strength) -- symbolize spiritual virtues that are often extolled in religious texts. They embark on this quest together, mirroring the communal aspect of many religions.

The slippers (silver in the book, ruby in the film) can be viewed as sacred objects, or relics, that assist her in her journey, providing divine protection and eventually leading her to salvation (returning home).

Finally, the revelation that the Wizard is a mere mortal, and that Dorothy had the power to return home all along, imparts a spiritual lesson often found in religious narratives: the divine or the sacred is not external, but within us."

If I was a student I could have easily expanded on these concepts (with or without GPT) and turned in a good essay.

"And he found absolutely every single imaginable problem even down to the most hysterically unimportant detail."

The fact an inspection document is impressive to read doesn't mean it is accurate. If he blew you away with his ability to name 100 minor things, but missed a structural issue, you'd be screwed, and would have no way to know this until the structure starting cracking.

I can't read the full Boston Globe article due to the paywall and offer no opinion on the author's state of mind, but if you assume some small percent of outwardly functional people have "eccentric" personalities, it would not be surprising that you would occasionally hear about a college professor doing something eccentric. Why is any further explanation needed than "some humans have quirky personalities and do quirky things..."

I've never heard an investment expert use a term like "8% yearly upside risk" and suspect there's some errors in your thinking.

Look at it this way:

Imagine you have $200 dollars to invest. You can invest in country A or Country B. You know in a year one country will be up 10% and one will be up 1%. You don't know which country will be up the 10% and which will be up the 1%.

In a year, you need $205 dollars. Unless you like to live dangerously the rational thing to do is invest equally in both countries where you'll get a 6 dollar return. If you pick a single country you'll have a 50% chance of not having enough money.

Of course real world investing is more complicated, but my example demonstrates it's about probabilities of success at meeting your goals. Country A and country B have equal expected returns but investing in both decreases the probability of running out of money when you need it. Or it should, if we've modeled the expected returns of each country correctly.

"The difference between the two groups wasn't statistically significant."

Since 2018 U.S. stocks have returned 9.59% per year (I checked with Portfolio Visualizer) and international stocks have returns 1.83%. I don't see how that supports the idea that economies are very interconnected and investing outside the country can't produce a large return differential.

We also haven't had a official recession in the U.S. over that time period, I believe, so the topic of recession seems like a red herring.