That OpenAI haven't recalled their product after it's been involved in several violent deaths, that it would even be absurd to suggest they should recall it, really highlights how corrupt and disgusting the industry and the whole structure propping it up are.
That is certainly a way you can use to describe a course of action that you would consider morally good. I don't know if you should, but I suppose it is not a physical impossibility.
Yes dude, that's the main thing you should be concerned about of course. AI tools couldn't possibly be bad in and of themselves, it has to be human tampering. You've always been very clear about that part.
The old chestnut that really these days it's women who hold all the power is as old as times. I saw an instance in Perrault's introduction to the tale of Griselidis (1691) and I'm sure you can go much further back. Not sure why we ever even bothered with voting rights, reproductive freedom, or personhood.
God I looked into the article this is meant to illustrate, and I have feelings. The idea this mysterious, evocative short story is something to be solved, and that he's somehow cracked the code. And it must be precisely about Dracula. Don't ask yourself why the name comes from Proust, and why the style and themes are so heavily proustian. Proust is not genre literature, it isn't in communication with the literature of ideas, which means it is of no value. Gene Wolfe is genre literature, so the story must be about vampires, and nothing else. Any literary depth is mere distraction, a ruse meant to mislead you and have you fail the test. Can't wait for the rationalist Pale Fire remake!!!
A small sidenote on a dynamic relevant to how I am thinking about policing in these cases:
A classical example of microeconomics-informed reasoning about criminal justice is the following snippet of logic.
If someone can gain in-expectation X dollars by committing some crime (which has negative externalities of Y>X dollars), with a probability p of getting caught, then in order to successfully prevent people from committing the crime you need to make the cost of receiving the punishment (Z) be greater than X/p, i.e. X<p∗Z.
Or in less mathy terms, the more likely it is that someone can get away with committing a crime, the harsher the punishment needs to be for that crime.
In this case, a core component of the pattern of plausible-deniable aggression that I think is present in much of Said's writing is that it is very hard to catch someone doing it, and even harder to prosecute it successfully in the eyes of a skeptical audience. As such, in order to maintain a functional incentive landscape the punishment for being caught in passive or ambiguous aggression needs to be substantially larger than for e.g. direct aggression, as even though being straightforwardly aggressive has in some sense worse effects on culture and norms (though also less bad effects in some other ways), the probability of catching someone in ambiguous aggression is much lower.
Fucking hell, that is one of the stupidest most dangerous things I've ever heard. Guy solves crime by making the harshness of punishment proportional to the difficulty of passing judgement. What could go wrong?
Amoeba_Girl @ Amoeba_Girl @awful.systems Posts 0Comments 687Joined 2 yr. ago
So... They're going to use the bot trained on wikipedia to rewrite wikipedia. Very much a Pierre Menard type situation.