nshshbr

If you would like your interlocutors to converse with you as a careful and subtle user of English idiom, I suggest that you first master such basics as the usage of articles in phrases like "in good shape", which you have amusingly written as "in a good shape". Otherwise one will be more likely to assume any other quirks of speech to be mere errors of a novice student of this unfortunate tongue.

I don't for a moment believe in any case that any idiosyncratic materialist notion of spirit constitutes a really meaningful belief for you. On the contrary, I will not be unjustified in assuming that the comfort you purport to draw from this sort of superficial surveillance of self (and of any nonconsenting unfortunates who happen to come to your minders' attention) merely represents the fear of death so typical of our technologists today.

I am however truly sorry to see that, for you, sincerely, and also for all of us stuck dealing with the effects of this spiritual disease. You will not be able to define or contextualize away the reality of spirit, nor substitute it with worldly trivia.

This outlook is materialism, in which the term "spirit" becomes completely superfluous. There is no reason for you to ever use the word spirit at all if you believe spiritual death is synonymous with bodily death. You can just say bodily death and admit that you don't believe you have or need spirit. But your spirit is dead of neglect because you do not know what it is.

Yes, so exciting to "thoughtfully" disguise modern spyware tech as boutique retro accessories.

This is what complete spiritual death sounds like.

No more cameras.

My only concern with respect to discourse is that consent be not treated as a commodity that must be offered for a price, as if we were hostage to cancer and willing to trade anything, including our freedom, dignity, and integrity to be free of it.

Thiel et al. have described technological change as a means of forcing unilateral changes on an unwilling public. There is no basis for trust unless there exists a justice system that can appropriately discipline and restrain such people and their coconspirators, and force them to abandon their plans to inflict unwanted conditions on masses of people.

You're not asking me, but I want to say that there is nothing Anthropic or any other AI company can do to make me trust them other than to dissolve and give up their ambitions and do something else. Then maybe, after seeing genuine contrition and humility I would trust them to do something else. But likely not. After all they've done, they should accept that a permanent loss of trust is a reasonable consequence. They should lose their influence, position, and money. They should live the rest of their lives as ordinary people, unable to ever again cause mass harm to others, and they should be grateful to be forgiven, and allowed such a humble opportunity.

My answer to their proposal for what our society should look like, and what kind of technologies we should use is "no". It's not a trust issue, as in I would not accept the proposal from anyone, even if I did otherwise trust them. And if someone I trusted insistently proposed this, I would stop trusting them.

In any case, they don't accept refusal, but try this grotesque and condescending maneuver about "trust", as if I and many others were not really just saying "no".

No one who refuses to take "no" for an answer can ever deserve trust. If you are committed to convincing me to go along with your desires, and have no intent of accepting my refusal, you will never deserve trust, and I will never trust you.

These companies may have the power to do what they want anyway. But they will never have a clear conscience, or trust and support from me or anyone like me.

How do you not see other societal level problems. This technology destroys human communication. It undermines the thing the internet came into existence for, and turns it into a liability. It grants intelligent analysis to a sprawling surveillance network. It makes people mentally ill. It destroys confidence and hope in technological progress. Who even cares about cancer at that point? I would rather die of cancer than live in a fake, ugly, artless world full of fake, stupid, and crazy people under constant surveillance by an AI.

You can't sell eternal life in an increasingly miserable world. There is no point curing cancer, if it were even possible, if all of your other activities function to increase the rate of suicide. If these people succeed in robbing the world of every last moment of privacy, every last spark of creativity, and all possibility of genuine human connection, cancer will be the least of your problems.

I always think the most salient comparison would be to say, "We will solve all computer bugs and eliminate all computer viruses and security vulnerabilities." No one ever even thinks to promise this, I think because it is obvious that even a superintelligent computer will never be totally free of errors or invulnerable to attack.

Or, even better, they never even respond to surging memory costs by saying, "Don't worry, our brilliant AI will figure out how to produce cheaper memory." Because they know it won't.

I genuinely don't know how to interpret the bizarre clichés these people think in. Cure cancer. Make death optional! I can't tell if they're crazy, stupid, or liars.