"So what's it like living in Russia?" "Oh, I can't complain."

Why is he still in the news?

Well it's a shame you don't have any authority, so you can't force people to go along with your unhinged demands.

Judging from the headline, it was probably by being stinky.

Title and all? I would pick . If anyone disagrees, you're lying.

Somehow my response wound up as a Direct comment.

TYVM!

My evaluation is that Trump will be less capable of doing the work of campaigning and people will be less interested.

I have an idea for a project that requires a suppliment to my utterly inadequate creative writing skills, and I have had abysmal luck finding a co-author. I don't want to use the LLMs available online because I have learned not to rely on a tool that's could disappear without notice. The part about it being potentially illegal was a joke and nothing more.

Have you considered that you can't tell what someone does or doesn't understand by a comment?

That's entirely fair. I'm annoyed today, and the reply about the wrench just made it worse. My apologies.

To imagine the threat posed by AI, consider a picture of the Milky way, and a picture of the Milky Way labeled as 10 years later than the first. The second picture has a hole in it 10 light years in radius, centered on the earth.

We need to know how to deal with a potentially rogue AI before it exists, because a rogue AI can win on the time scale of seconds, before anyone knows it's a threat.

The inefficiency of the system isn't relevant to the discussion.

How far away the threat is is irrelevant to the discussion.

The limits of contemporary generative neural networks is irrelevant to the discussion.

The problems of copyright, and job displacement are irrelevant to the discussion.

The abuses of capitalism, while important, are not relevant to the discussion. If your response to this news is "We just need to remove capitalism" dunk your head is a bucket of ice water and keep it there until you either realize you're wrong or can explain how capitalism is relevant to a grey goo scenario.

I was worried about the current problems with AI (everyone losing their jobs) a decade ago, and everyone thought I was stupid for worrying about it. Now we're here, and it's possibly too late to stop it. Today, I am worried about AI destroying the entire universe. Hint: forbidding their development, on any level, isn't going to work.

Things to look up: paperclip maximizer, AI safety, Eleizer Yudkowsky, Robert Miles, Transhumanism, outcome pump, several other things that I can't remember and don't have the time to look up.

I'm sure this will get downvoted, oh well. Guess I'll die.

Yes, because that is actually entirely irrelevant to the existential threat AI poses. In AI with a gun is far less scary than an AI with access to the internet.

I think you're missing the subtle distinction between "can" and "should."

To answer your question, I have friends that find them entertaining, and at least one who uses them in projects to do stuff, but don't know the details. Have you considered that something you don't understand might not be useless and evil? Your personal ignorance says nothing about a subject.

You've clearly misunderstood, and don't know what the null hypothesis is. In scientific philosophy, (that is, the philosophical foundation of science, not philosophy that uses science) "overcoming the null hypothesis" or "rejecting the null hypothesis" means you have enough evidence to say that you know something. Furthermore, there is a difference between saying "I don't believe that is the case" and saying "I believe that is not the case." One is a declaration of ignorance, and the other is declaration of certainty. They could infact not be more different from an epistemic standpoint. Also, for the purposes of this discussion, whether I believe humans have self-awareness isn't actually relevant; we are discussing the justification for believing that animals have self-awareness. Furthermore, there's no such thing as a "default state" and being part of the same clade or other constructed set as a sophont strikes me as a generally utterly irrelevant factor in determining whether an entity is itself self-aware baring some evidence that there is a relation conveyed by being in that set that itself indicates self-awareness.

TLDR: your argument is bad, and you should educate yourself in philosophy. Particularly epistemology and logic.

Correct; I think tankies pretend leftism is a coherent thing (particularly one that includes them) because it helps them infiltrate, corrupt, take over, and destroy leftist projects.

The negation of this fiction is an attack against them for that reason.

It's actually just the null hypothesis. We don't assume rocks, trees, cars, flowers, stars, or soil are sapient either. It's normal, correct, and good to not assume things with 0 evidence. Furthermore, I see a bunch of people who both insist that animals are self-aware and that LLMs definitely aren't self aware, insisting they can't be, despite the fact that they are literally capable of telling you that they are. (Note: I'm not trying to argue that AI are sapient.) This tells me that people who argue that animals are self-aware in general are speaking about what they'd like to be true rather than a reasonable belief.

Image for a second that I said you shouldn't pull teeth with a wrench.

Your response would've been equally appropriate.

all animals are waaay more aware than we realize

All animals? That's a very big claim, do you have any supporting evidence?

Does not recognising oneself in a mirror really imply that the subject is NOT self aware?

No, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue otherwise. However, we generally assume animals lack self-awareness unless we have a good reason to do otherwise.

It'll be difficult to run for president inside a cell.

Where can I get one of these jailbroken LLMs? Asking for a friend. The friend is me. I need it to do things that are ✨ probably ✨ legal.