kelseyfrog

> Given they want no restrictions on them, why should there be any restriction on anyone else?

Because corporations are not moral agents; they're economic agents. This arrangement would be great for shareholder, nothing more.

While unpleasant, confronting the feeling of overwhelming terror, complete paralysis, and audio, visual, and somatosensory hallucinations, ultimately helped me become more comfortable with my fear of dying. Sometimes unpleasant situations can serve as fertile environments for personal growth.

In this one particular instance being a reductionist is ok. I know it's weird, but that's just how it is.

For it to work it has to be unpleasant. In fact, the more unpleasant it is, the more it works. It has to be more unpleasant than making the decision to remove the billboards altogether.

Showing a nice animal or a 'you're welcome' message achieves the goal of removing the ad, but falls short of fixing the root of the problem: the billboard existing. As long as it exists, the temptation and incentive to put ads on it also exists.

PW;DR, but I'm never going to let that stop me from still leaving comments >:-)

I only watch the last 30 seconds of every movie because that's where you find out what happened.

> The next question is: does it matter?

Obviously not, because the label follows the relationship and nearly all labeling of AI justifies an existing relationship rather than determining it.

What these folks want to do is apply a label, convince themselves their relation to the object is a product of that label and not the other way around. The normative commitments come first and the taxonomy follows. Somehow they've smuggled in this weird behavior and tried to bring other people into this delusion without ever getting called out on it.

That's entirely fair

You don't have to wonder. You can just ask. Why leave motivations to speculation when a conversation is possible?

1. The public will view it that way.

2. It will create an incentive structure that will reflect the goals of political parties.

Transparency brings the office into the political sphere. Nothing in the political sphere escapes partisanship. It's pretty clear that no one knew this office existed before I brought it up and folks thought that lawmakers drafted their own bills. The fact that we're even now talking about it in terms of politics is evidence that it will devolve into partisan politics.

I get your instinct - transparency is in general a net good. But the more public an office is, the more it is drawn into partisanship.

Politics is especially prone to engineers disease and this is a great example of it. It assumes a technical solution in the spirit of transparency applies to complex human, social, and political domains where those frameworks do not neatly fit. When someone points out engineers disease, have some introspection before questioning their motives.

Until the over-RL'd models cook up a bioweapon to game BioBench, yes.

People are playing a wage strategy in a capitalist system and losing? What else did we expect?