Most likely scenario is that if it does something “unlawful” and found out - claim that “These machines are black boxes and they don’t know what went wrong. They will set up an investigative committee and find out.”

When shit hits the fan they are going to blame AI, but then not even use hand sanitizer. They will 100% be using OAI as a scapegoat, although I'd like to see the OAI goat stay and someone else run into the woods.

All Lawful Use is a tautology with fascists because they cannot break laws by definition.

Yeah, here's some examples of all these fascists doing exactly that:

Soviet Union - The show trials of the 1930s were conducted with full legal apparatus: confessions, judges, verdicts. Stalin's purges operated through legally constituted troikas. Entirely "lawful" by Soviet law.

East Germany (DDR) - The Stasi's surveillance and harassment programmes were codified in law. When the wall fell, many Stasi officers genuinely argued their conduct was legal under GDR statute: a defence that West German courts largely rejected.

Castro's Cuba - Mass executions after the revolution were conducted by legally constituted revolutionary tribunals. Castro explicitly defended this on legality grounds when challenged by foreign press in 1959.

Chavez/Maduro's Venezuela - Suppression of opposition media, jailing of political opponents was consistently defended as operating within Venezuelan law, which was progressively rewritten to make it so. Classic self-referential legality.

Mao's Cultural Revolution - The revolutionary committees had legal standing. Persecution of intellectuals and landlords proceeded through formal (if kangaroo) legal processes.

You should ask the language model that output this text the definition of 'whataboutism,' and if the comment you've posted responds meaningfully to the discussion at hand.

I think similar to how AI-generated comments are frowned upon, "this comment was generated by Ai" comments should also be frowned upon. It's really annoying to see a well written comment and replies that don't address the comment but just accuse the poster of having used Ai to generate the comment.

you should ask the GP about his use of the word fascist on everything he doesn't like.

> if the comment you've posted responds meaningfully to the discussion at hand.

https://mirror.org/

Nothing deep going on there. Fascism in modern informal parlance is a synonym for authoritarianism. Those who object most loudly to Stalin being called a fascist are usually themselves actually fascists, or stalinists. Everybody else gets it.

"We use different definitions now, fascism is things I don't like."

Yes, it has become a general use pejorative. At least in this case it's being used to refer to murderous authoritarians.

you have upped the ante

There are no stakes to this conversation.

> you should ask the GP about his use of the word fascist on everything he doesn't like.

If mirror dot org actually existed, you might want to look into it, because your long list of examples has one related to 1930s Germany, and the rest has nothing to do with the political definition of "fascism"?

Your point about legality was valid, but you're undermining it with the sarcasm.

Everything I don't like is pretty broad brush. I have only used it with the Trump regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-su...

Oh no, it's retarded!

* spawn 8 investigative agents

More like they will feed machine bullshit like WMDs exist in Fiji. My gut says so. My mom always believes me. Machine will call it out. Then they want overide. Machine will log it. Then they want an erase log button etc. Institutions and rules didnt fall from the sky. It evolved to damp the damage caused by such behavior.

All lawful use. And then they followed up with “intentionally doing illegal things.” If they happen to accidentally do illegal things, OpenAI is ok with it.

I hate this so much. The nsa’s spying on everyone in 2010 was “legal” and I can only imagine how much worse it is now with AI to follow your digital footprint around everywhere. Too bad we don’t have any more whistleblowers like Snowden

"Too bad we don’t have any more whistleblowers like Snowden"

Probably because most don't want to end up in russia?

I feel so sad about snowden sometimes. I tried reading his book's first few pages on how when he was growing up, he could be anyone in a forum and there was this sense of anonymity and at the same time, just freedom. And later on when he saw just how much the overreach of govt. was etc., he did what others couldn't.

It wasn't as if there weren't any other contractors like Snowden, but there were no other whistleblowers like Snowden

and where'd that leave him? In a country far away from his motherland and being worried about his safety. Being called god knows what by the country at home and most general people don't even care.

Snowden didn't do it for the money, he did it for what he felt was right and that's so rare.

Its so sad how when I searched up on Snowden on youtube, the first thing I found was ex CIA agent claiming Snowden wasn't innocent and how he had to befriend russia but at the same time, that was only because US would have literally killed him and made an example out of him to whistleblow about such a large-scale mass surveillance

“What kind of asshole reveals the fact we’re the assholes, then doesn’t let us kill him!” is one heck of a comment I found.

Also, We will charge the whistleblower with death but we will not take any action against the act which was whistleblown in the first place (:

I agree. What people forget is Snowden didn't intend to end up in Russia. He wanted to go from Hong Kong (where he tought he would be safe, but realised extradition still was an option) to Ecuador. But he feared US would intercept his plane if he went over US/US allies sky. So his plan was to go from HK to Russia, then to Cuba and finally Ecuador.

Russia stopped him because US had cancelled his passport.

That fear proved well-grounded. While it probably doesn't seem as big of a deal now — in this era when we just serially assassinate heads of state we don't like without any pretense otherwise — the US indeed did direct its European allies to intercept the plane of Bolivian president Evo Morales, based on the (incorrect, as it turned out) suspicion that Snowden was on board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

OpenAI: Is that... legal?

DoD: I will make it legal.

Alignment is with the user of the LLM not to some fuzzy interpretation of human rights. So solving alignment for the DoW is just "don't refuse to bomb people when I ask you".

That's absolutely not the definition people use for alignment. Safety discussions often circle around alignment because they are worried about AI doing things that are bad for humanity as a whole, not because it goes off track from any one user's goal. That would be terrible for safety if alignment meant I could ask to hack tha TSA and the LLM would do it.

Ignoring the definition, what would be required for individual alignment is exactly the same as collective alignment. The only difference is the goals and who writes them, for the LLM it is being somehow forced to follow those rules no matter what.

That's safety, not alignment. Alignment is necessarily to the user.