jfyi

No, we have a moral obligation to make sure Sam Altman's trillion dollar business does ethical shit.

If that means taking chunks of it because he can't be a responsible steward, so be it. It would behoove him to get on board before that is necessary.

> Could you define what you mean by human perspective?

They can't. This is an "anti-consciousness" qualia argument adapted to a general purpose anti-ai argument.

They are arguing that meaning doesn't come from the accurate reproduction of information, but from the subjective, lived experience behind the words. That subjectivity can't be defined, it's the whole point. It will never be defined, no matter how far along we come.

> Maybe this is a timeless problem, but I fear it getting worse.

It's both, I think. It seems to me that it happens during periods of fast technological advancement. We just happen to be living through a sustained period of that.

The historical precedent is that it slows down again after people get a chance to take in the new reality. I am not sure how comforting that is.

> Maybe you shouldn't take the "you" of this article personally, but as a reference to your 100 mouth breathing neighbors.

That's great and all, but if policy is created for the lowest common denominator because of these 100 dopamine-depleted donkeys, is it going to impact me?

It increases signal to noise ratio in comparison to raw google results.

You might or might not miss that hobbyist web page. I can't say for certain, but I do know that most of my self learning explicitly includes going over the history of the topic.

Or you know, same scenario, but you are looking for information on how quanta work. You really can't make sense of the first 10 pages of google results, but you happen on "Motion Mountain" on the 11th page and you end up spending the next two years telling people the universe is made of little knots.

If that sounds like a pretty specific example, it's because it's a real one of someone I knew. I don't think the tool here is going to massively impact the quality. The person's judgement will play a way heavier role in that.

The average person was able to look at the devices up until now and see a tool. Now they see something they don't understand, but sure does seem smarter than they are, and has the aesthetics of being a person on the other side of the computer.

Do you think this guy has the technical depth to make these connections? He's working off what he can see, and he will likely grow old and die still lacking that understanding. So will a vast majority of users of these services.

What you are seeing is people realigning with a baseline of their reality. They have to trust what they are being told on this by someone, and they need to figure out who and how amid malicious actors that are trying to bend their beliefs.

> Holy moly we all jumped on this comment at the same time didn't we.

It's good to see push back against this narrative that is trying to develop that this isn't any kind of big deal.

This has been every machine on the internet compromised for at least 12 hours and probably some that are not going to ever get patched.

Sure practicality is always an issue. It's an issue that attackers will go to great lengths to resolve too.

What if it's the Starbucks at 1730 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006 for an extended period of time? Compounded with other security issues like password reuse...

We can always draw a line and say, "that's not practical". The assessment an attacker is likely to do is going to be "is this practical inside my budget for the value I hope to acquire?" or maybe even just "waow, lulz".

Yeah, it increases the attack surface of mitm attacks to your network from the local os level.

Vance really is something. American's own little Smeagol. Sad little twisted creature that doesn't even understand the power that is bending him.

Do you think he realizes he will be discarded?

So your point is that scripture is irrelevant, but you are asking for scripture to defend a statement. Also, there have been at least 4 other verses mentioned in this thread.

Really, what has happened here is that you have failed to give an alternative interpretation. Your entire argument stands on your ability to do so.

I already went over the relevance to extreme wealth in another comment, I encourage you to address it there.

You explicitly asked for the exact biblical text, but when provided with it, you are now claiming it is "weaponizing religion to be non-inclusive."

Isn't the exact opposite problem much more prevalent here? Namely, that extreme wealth simply buys access and exceptions to these ethical teachings.

Yes, he's Lutheran, and yet he practices the theology of glory. He has lost the plot, very likely deliberately as you suggest.

It really is. The way I see it, you have two routes to go if you want a compromised key to use for your intelligence agency.

Do we pick something properly secure and nail our asses to the wall if it is ever found out, or do we pick something that looks like negligence so it can be shrugged off even if it makes discovery more likely?

Add to that eMudhra's quick exit, stage left. There is definitely something that smells rotten here.