marcta

If I hire an artist to draw something for me, I don't get to say that I drew it.

The salesperson comes in and says they've sold a big order of x units based on having a web portal that can set the temperature.

This just means that number 1 is also corrupt. OP is talking about the scale of none to complete corruption, not the relative rankings of all countries.

This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps the end of the beginning.

-- Winston Churchill, 10 November 1942

Maybe a better word would be "corrupting". Lobbying causes people to act in a way that is contrary to what people expect at face value, since it changes the incentives: if we assume that politicians choose what is best for them personally, their actions change from "what makes me popular with the most voters" to "what gives me the most money and power". This is often (not always) to the detriment of the voters themselves.

That doesn't always work though, since citizens aren't given a vote on every policy issue[0]. Also, in the UK at the moment we have had a long stream of unelected governments, which make policy that isn't in the last manifesto that had a vote.

[0]: I'm not saying they should be, since that's what political representatives are for.

Are we getting to the point where every API can be reverse engineered too? If so, that's not safe either.

Sure; but writing to an LLM is not "in private". That's the point of the original post.

> with Altman the only one worthy of the seat of power

How does that make sense, if Altman is unable to control OpenAI's agents at the moment?

Don't leave it on a cliffhanger, what really happens?

Why is arr.filter().map() better than arr.reduce()? Doesn't arr.reduce() only loop once through the array?

I think the point is that once it becomes a crypto key, stock price, weather observation, whatever, the datum ceases to be random and becomes arbitrary.

Which business will hire a consultant who doesn't fully endorse the AI-everything religion?

Here's a thought experiment: consider the person that you disagree with the most (politically, religiously, socially, whatever). Would you want _that_ person to have an AI chatbot aligned to them and their views?

In fairness, a false positive is better than a false negative.