swid

I am getting some downvotes, so let me clear up a little:

Amodei and Altman are both openly advocating for increased regulation, and I do question their motives, because both of them are running companies with a ton of debt, and facing some very real competition from open models.

What I think they want is for politicians to ensure their companies' survival via some form of regulatory capture; making it illegal to use other models; enforce their twisted version of copyright; etc. Lacking enough political power is existential to them since they run such high costs.

Are they out there amplifying the viewpoint that what they are doing is dangerous and must be regulated? Yes.

Would they do that if it was actually bad for their business? NO - the CEOs specifically would virtually not be allowed to ask for regulation if they thought it was bad for investors for them to do that.

So what we have is AI companies openly saying they are doing dangerous work and must be regulated; and I infer they want that to protect them and not us.

FWIW, I think AI will just about obsolete us all and that is bad for almost everyone, but I still think it is transparently driven by profit and corporate agendas when the top leaders of these companies encourage regulation - they do not expect it to work out badly for them.

I'm just laying reasons for thinking this does not mean there is no corporate plot to promote high p(doom) - it has no bearing on how much I agree with the people promoting the idea. I am providing a framework for why this post might fail to convince people... the narrative can still be reinforced via paid messaging which constitutes some kind of plot in my book.

There is more than one kind of corporate plot though. The article defends against the kind where some people inside a cooperation have some idea to make more money with unsavory methods, in an imagined backroom I suppose, and then use corporate resources to pursue that plan to achieve their goals.

In this case, we have a bunch of people who believe something. Some of them get jobs in that field. They notice their belief could be beneficial to their company (and make them more money), and so using corporate resources to amplify this viewpoint is well justified spend to help them achieve their goals.

In my view, there is little difference in the outcome between the two and probably the line is very blurry... do people in the 2nd case sometimes say the quiet part outloud? Do people in the first often believe they are only doing what is right and rational without finances considered?

Often these posts come straight from the top of AI companies with specific policy goals in mind. What good will come from understanding Amodei / Altman's "true" motives anyway?

> If there are no humans, there are no wonders of the world.

I don't agree with this at all. I can't even figure out what your position is though - you follow up suggesting I'm the one being egotistical? That's deeply ironic... it feels like you may have missed the point I was making. I don't support going around the universe and blowing up barren planets like Mars either, although I would be in favor of bringing new life to barren worlds. I can easily conceive there are other kinds of intelligent life, both on our planet and off of it; and whether or not humans will ever even meet or know of those species, it is still tragic for them to die off.

> the % of jobs not doable by AI and robotics approaches 0 over time.

Horse are an analogy. When they were more economically useful, there were about 5x the number of them. Now they are basically pets and we get comments like this suggesting the work they do is virtually meaningless.

There are tests, but I don't collect any real usage statistics to double check them... I could believe that if you pick up the dice and carefully throw it lightly, you can control the values more than intended, and this value would be somewhat correlated with the previous roll for quick enough rolls.

I did think about changing the rotation speed of the dice before you throw, kind of speed it up and slow down. I first added the shuffling effect if you hold them; kind of a shell game animation. If I improve it more, occasionally giving some dice a swift spin would make it harder to defeat I think.

Like you say, this is intended for people who are not going to cheat each other and just want to have fun, so I won't make it worse to account for it.

I guess it works better on mobile with a swipe. I could change space to hold it a brief moment and throw it harder. Now that I am looking at it, that is probably what you mean.

I think I want it to use physics in the end though, not map an RNG result at the end. You can see the faces and what you get is like a real die. If someone can beat it, maybe that is good for them.

The planet / Mother Earth is just a way to talk about connected ecosystems of this big rock we live on. Yes the rock is not alive, but life is important, even if your only concern is as a proxy for our own support systems. How much value you place on different lives - your own, other people, whales, monkeys, deer, bugs… you are free to value them differently, but I’d hope you would not gleefully accept that we should just tolerate the wholesale destruction of habits on earth simply because it does not appear to affect human survival on the surface.

In case you have not noticed, we are currently in the sixth great extinction of this planet, which is driven by human activity. I consider it beyond tragic and existential to know that many of the wonders of this planet are going away and never coming back. Humans can live with air conditioning or under ground, but that doesn’t help other animals. You can still view this under a human lens if you wish, but for many of us, those other kinds of life are worth something, and bundling up that value by saying “we must protect the Earth” seems quite natural and defendable to me.

I would not pay for something so obviously extremely AI generated. If your sales are slipping, I don’t think this helps.

I made no claim about the distribution and frankly it has no bearing on my point or the person who said he could post two pictures. The point is there are a lot of numbers / pictures / essays / that will never be generated, and someone is controlling what is possible. In fact people are working very hard to produce distributions pleasing to them, like your die.

If I roll a die, it is randomly sampled, but I will always get 1-6, and that is intended by the person who made the die.

My problem with your solution to require author permission to train is that it doesn’t solve anything long term.

What happens when all the licensed information still leads to the creation of demand hoarding AI? Most of what they are stealing is the sum total of human knowledge, which was created before most of us were even born - it is public domain already.

> There is no near term commercial value

How much do you think other AI companies would offer to get access to the transcripts of the generation that led to the proof? No doubt OpenAI will include it in their training data somehow and use it to build the next generation.

There is already economic value.

If our own brains were insufficient to demonstrate the fallacy of the Chinese Room; the particles, molecules, cells, synapses, and so forth of our bodies cannot be believed to have understanding, but we recognize it in the sum of the part anyway....

... we now have LLMs to even more pointedly show the deficiencies of the argument.