yannyu

If AI has a survival instinct, then we should theoretically see evidence of it if we construct the right environment for AI to express it. Animals and cellular organisms demonstrate a survival instinct under the right conditions, so we would have to find equivalent conditions for a hypothetical machine intelligence.

Conversely, we know that if we take animals that do have a survival instinct and put them into the wrong kinds of environments, they will not thrive and will degenerate or possibly commit suicide. Similarly, if AI did have a survival instinct, do we think we've created an environment where that could be reasonably tested and observed?

If an active shooter is the anticipated threat, how does a turnstile effectively stop that? Many of these turnstiles are specifically meant to allow people through in emergencies, and aren't strong enough to withstand bullets or even a sturdy kick. The elevator restrictions would be a better chokepoint, but as the article noted they didn't turn those back on.

I think you're right, but I also think it's worthwhile to look at Edward Bernays in the early 1900s and his specific influence on how companies and governments to this day shape deliberately shape public opinion in their favor. There's an argument that his work and the work of his contemporaries was a critical point in the flooding of the collective consciousness with what we would consider propaganda, misinformation, or covert advertising.

Did you read the article you cited or are you just evaluating the snapshot of numbers?

> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty-four percent of Americans say they are “very satisfied” with the way things are going in their personal life, the lowest by two percentage points in Gallup’s trend dating back to 2001. This also marks the continuation of a decline in personal satisfaction since January 2020, when the measure peaked at 65%.

> Record-Low 44% of Americans Are 'Very Satisfied' With Their Personal Life

And then to link to your own blog post as though that were a supporting citation is strange to say the least.

It's a lot of "just stop being depressed" energy.

Learning is effortful. People can travel and not learn anything, but people can not learn from many things they should learn from. Travel is something you can learn from no matter where you go, but you typically have to put in the effort.

This is an interesting idea, I think clickbait titles are one of many problems with our engagement-based social media tools today. For the sake of experimentation and transparency, here's the suggested titles from ChatGPT 4. They seem to be more descriptive and accurate overall.

---

Possible alternative titles that better match the article’s content:

How Phishers Are Using SendGrid to Target SendGrid Users with Political Bait

– Accurately reflects the mechanism (SendGrid abuse), the audience, and the novel political/social-engineering angle.

SendGrid Account Takeovers Are Fueling a Sophisticated Phishing Ecosystem

– More technical / HN-native framing, avoids culture-war implications.

Phishception: Politically Targeted Phishing Sent Through Compromised SendGrid Accounts

– Highlights the core insight and the self-reinforcing nature of the attack.

Sure, it worked and then it stopped working. Upvotes, reviews, social media, and word-of-mouth have been co-opted by advertising and marketing.

Or maybe companies turned products that were one-time purchases into monthly subscriptions. Or companies made it incredibly hard to cancel monthly subscriptions. Or companies will continue to charge and auto-renew us even when we clearly don't use the product. Or companies will unilaterally degrade our service or push us to lower tiers in order to better serve customers who aren't you. Or companies will have us pay a monthly subscription, and then also sell our data to the highest bidder anyway.

Maybe many of these companies have never had our interest at heart, and people are tired of feeling constantly screwed over and seen as a revenue stream instead of customers.

One thing I don't understand in these conversations is why we're treating LLMs as if they are completely interchangeable with chatbots/assistants.

A car is not just an engine, it's a drivetrain, a transmission, wheels, steering, all of which affect the end-product and its usability. LLMs are no different, and focusing on alignment without even addressing all the scaffolding that intermediates the exchange between the user and the LLM in an assistant use case seems disingenuous.

> If the only tactic the police knew was to pull over every Infiniti with tinted windows and no plates, the crime rate would drop to zero.

Then the question is, why don't they do that? Why do we need a surveillance state to enable police to do what residents might consider the bare minimum?

Well, then we should judge the ideas on their own merits. And it's also not a great idea.

It's a shallow, post-hoc, mystic rationalization that ignores all the work in multiple fields that actually converged to get us to this point.

I think it's even more pernicious than the paper describes as cultural outputs, art, and writing aren't done to solve a problem, they're expressions that don't have a pure utility purpose. There's no "final form" for these things, and they change constantly, like language.

All of these AI outputs are both polluting the commons where they pulled all their training data AND are alienating the creators of these cultural outputs via displacement of labor and payment, which means that general purpose models are starting to run out of contemporary, low-cost training data.

So either training data is going to get more expensive because you're going to have to pay creators, or these models will slowly drift away from the contemporary cultural reality.

We'll see where it all lands, but it seems clear that this is a circular problem with a time delay, and we're just waiting to see what the downstream effect will be.

Ah, that's helpful and something for me to learn more about. Thanks for the info.

I've thought about this a lot as I see more and more reckless driving in the areas I live in. Surveillance is generally a net negative, but it's also bad when you see people speeding around schools, rolling through stop signs, and running red lights. We seem to have a worst of all situations where traffic is getting increasingly difficult to enforce, driving is getting more dangerous year by year, and we're terrified of government overreach if we add any automation at all to enforcement.

I don't know the solution, but I do know that in the US we've lost 10-15 years of progress when it comes to traffic fatalities.

Why would someone in an Idaho suburb care about how Manhattan manages its congestion pricing? Why is this national news?

Everything you're saying has zero impact on 93-97% of the US population (New York State is 6% of the US population, NYC is 3%). None of these people have real skin in the game, because this literally has no effect on them. New Yorkers don't vote in other states.

Why is a single student's grade in OSU national news? Why is congestion pricing national news? Why is a library in the middle of nowhere California news?

None of these things are actually related to why people are stretched thin and getting screwed by the system. In fact they're exactly unrelated which is why we're blasted with this stuff on the news 24/7. You're worried about a slippery slope argument when most of us are already being fleeced by current, real policies from government and corporations.

Congestion pricing is not the thing screwing over American families, it's the thing they're pointing at so you don't look at the actual thing.