dinfinity

Their new "Prove you're a human" is the problem here. Once you get that prompt once your only option is to install the app and upload biometrics.

Fuck that.

> The public wasn't unperturbed. The ones who didn't know any better believed Snowden's PRISM cock and bull story and rabidly froth about it to this day.

You're in too deep. Most people don't even know about Snowden. The public is much larger than just a bunch of techies. And that public essentially didn't give a fuck.

> Once again, the 4th Amendment massively limited them in what they could do.

On paper, not in practice. Every since 9/11 the balance of security vs. liberty has been off. The point stands that Snowden changed nothing fundamentally about that (ongoing) slide into dystopia.

Can you answer your original question now? If not, you should think about the similarities between humans and LLMs more rather than get lost in technical pedantry.

Or think about an extreme case: an LLM that is trained on almost nothing combined with great RAG and context.

> I don't think he would care one bit if people made AI art as long as they were happy and kind.

Exactly. I was trying to show that the AI part of it is irrelevant. There are plenty of 'AI content creators' that create amazing things.

The pernicious bit in content creation is the inherent chasing of money, views and clicks.

It is painting with a similarly broad brush as the parent comment, yet I don't see your condemnation of that one.

The thing to realize is that "because they use AI" isn't the thing that is making (some) content creators shameless. Chasing views, clicks, and money has always been the game for many. For some great creators the art or fun of it matters, whether they use AI or not.

> Unfortunately, content creators have no shame

FTFY.

Otherwise, you're right. A system where the selection pressure happens through money and attention is bound to devolve to appeal to the strongest most primitive of desires.

You disguise deflection with pedantry.

Let me repeat:

> I should have said "nothing fundamentally". I'm sure he didn't give up his life for HTTPS everywhere and SMTP over TLS..

> The reality is that the public moved on more or less unperturbed and that the US intelligence agencies did the same. Sure, it was a bump in the road, but they aren't massively limited in what they can do. The US being a surveillance state is closer than ever."

Both these ideas still stand.

Yes, PRISM was misinterpreted, but the larger matter was exposing a massively overpowered surveillance apparatus. An apparatus that is more powerful than before. Had Snowden known the lack of effect of his actions, he would not have taken them. This is what you seem to miss, tunneling on PRISM and deflecting to Trump's rise.

> I take him at his word.

Your interpretation of his words is lacking.

> It had to do with people believing deep state conspiracy theories like Snowden did and espoused.

1. Trump's rise was and is mostly about nativism, foreigners and money. It always is with demagogues.

2. "Deep state" is an incredibly badly defined term due to being used for almost anything the government does. Claiming its significance here just sets up a fruitless semantic discussion in which you can claim almost anything about whether it applies.

> He gave up his life because he thought PRISM was a massive violation of the 4th Amendment, and a government that could so easily ignore the 4th Amendment could just as easily ignore the 8th. Now we know that he was wrong about PRISM.

The truth is that neither you or I know why he did so exactly, but it stands to reason that he cared about mass government surveillance in general and hoped that his leaking would prevent that through public outrage; that makes more sense than that he only cared about PRISM.

> The only problem is that the hysteria caused by people uncritically believing Snowden without looking at his documents helped lead to Trump taking over every branch of the US government.

Nonsense. Trump's demagoguery and subsequent rise had nothing to do with Snowden.

Given the dystopian path that the USA and the world are on with regard to mass government surveillance, I would say that the real problem was the lack of hysteria after his leaks. You also seem to be downplaying matters here.

Seems a bit premature to make an HN post about then, imho.

It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't really do anything interesting yet. I looked at the output in the training run and it is a far, far cry from intelligence. Worse than GPT-2 as it stands.

I do hope it will perform well when scaled and trained, though; best of luck.

Do you find all your own (human) trained knowledge unreliable?

I should have said "nothing fundamentally". I'm sure he didn't give up his life for HTTPS everywhere and SMTP over TLS..

The reality is that the public moved on more or less unperturbed and that the US intelligence agencies did the same. Sure, it was a bump in the road, but they aren't massively limited in what they can do. The US being a surveillance state is closer than ever.

It's also very clear that he took enormous risks out of the good of his heart and basically gave up his life for absolutely jack shit; it changed absolutely nothing.

I'd be incredibly surprised if he isn't very cynical, resentful and hedonistic at this point.

> but unless someone--a human--can verify and understand it, it doesn't count

Does it need to be a human or can it be some other form of life?

I can't quite agree with your framing of loops, balance, and rhythm. A lot of the output patterns produced by the cerebellum are singular actions: tying your shoe laces, for instance. Progressing from learning how to do that to struggling whenever you try to do it differently than you always do (start halfway, reverse directions, verbally describing what you're doing, etc.) is more indicative of the optimizations that are encoded in the cerebellum, imho.

I can certainly imagine AI architectures evolving similar dedicated circuitry to perform common computations. As in us, it might be particularly useful for applications where some form of motor control is required, such as in self-driving and robotics.

It's a bit harder to come up with areas beyond that where it makes sense for general AI. Math and physics spring to mind, but in general the tendency to snap to a certain handling of an input pattern might be way too limiting in terms of creativity; it might become narrow-minded and primitive in those areas. OTOH, again, that might be fantastic for narrow AI applications.