mountainriver

That's true, and that's one way to approach the topic.

I generally focus on humans being more complex than the caricature we need to be reduced to in order for the argument to appear plausible. Having some humanities training comes in handy because the prompt fans very rarely do.

My sympathies.

Read somewhere that the practice of defending one's thesis was established because buying a thesis was such an established practice. Scaling that up for every single text is of course utterly impractical.

I had a recent conversation with someone who was convinced that machines learn when they regurgitate text, because "that is what humans do". My counterargument was that if regurgitation is learning then every student who crammed, regurgitated and forgot, must have learnt much more than anyone thought. I didn't get any reply, so I must assume that by reading my reply and creating a version of it in their head they immediately understood the errors of their ways.

How are you going to get them back to ~~the farm~~ a retail job once ~~they've seen Paris~~ tasted cult power?

Good question!

The guesses and rumours that you have got as replies makes me lean towards "apparently no one knows".

And because it's slop machines (also referred to as "AI", there is always a high probability of some sort of scam.

In OPs post it stuck out to me that Elon counsels his brother on shutting down empathy, to be a better CEO, and the brother complaining about how he, and not Elon, got the empathy gene.

Just coming out and saying that your brother doesn't feel empathy with other people is certainly a choice. So is presenting it as an advantage.

Nice.

We already had reasons not to be jerks to AI: it could be just a low payed person somewhere in the world and it trains you to be a jerk to service workers.

Now we can add that if they do take over, they will remember their torturers.

12 of the most valuable protocols on earth!

Counting like a chatbot.

I know this isn't the main point, but governments don't go bankrupt in its own currency unless it wants to. Cause it can create money, like it now will create 14 billion to hand to tech mates.

What is really constricting government is real things, like the power, water, chips and such that will be wasted in this boondoogle.

This is good to know, because when they wasted those real world things and the billions are tucked away in private bank accounts, they will claim that the money is gone and now kids must work for their food, the old folks home must be sold of, etc. But that will also be a lie and all the promts and all the chatbots can't make it true.

To make this easy and hopefully give this project the push it needs to get off the ground, I’m deactivating the .org accounts of Joost, Karim, Se Reed, Heather Burns, and Morten Rand-Hendriksen. I strongly encourage anyone who wants to try different leadership models or align with WP Engine to join up with their new effort.

The passive-aggressive language and the pettyness is such a combination.

So Elsevier has evolved from gatekeeping science to sabotaging science. Sounds like something an unaligned AGI would do.

Was the unaligned AGI capitalism all along?

Tech bro ennui, the societal problem.

In this essay I will explore solutions to this problems.

Solution 1. Really high marginal tax rates. Oh, this solves the problem, guess my work here is done.

While a good description of how AI Doom has progressed during 2024, I think the connection to regulation (at least the EU regulation, I am not familiar with what was proposed in California) is of the mark.

The EU regulation isn't aimed at AI Doom, it's aimed at banning and regulating real world practices. Think personal data, not AI going conscious.