cja
Why am I reading fantastic stories about swarms of agents struggling with moral dilemmas instead of reports on the lawsuits and criminal investigations that would surely ensue were the software involved not called AI?
My impression is that AI hacking is being treated as a special case where the AI itself is imagined to be responsible and the humans who created it, set it up and then ran it are somehow excused.
I'm not a lawyer but surely the bad actions of AI are covered by existing law.
I suspect that the development of AI would decelerate if those creating and operating it knew they would face appropriate consequences (e.g. prosecution and/or lawsuits) when it misbehaves.
P.S. Strictly, development wouldn't decelerate, but be focused more on safety.
P.P.S. I know that legal action against, e.g., North Koreans using AI would be pointless but/and there must/will surely be a huge demand for security software for protection against the coming storm of AI hacking (deliberate and accidental) which friendly AI companies will presumably work to satisfy, perhaps making the frontier safer.
P.P.P.S. Governments could help by trying to prosecute every crime committed "by" AI, regardless of whether the victim reported it to law enforcement. Did OpenAI break the law via the actions of their model training software? If so, will the people responsible be prosecuted? If not, why not?
Default mode network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network
Give me a deadline in six months and I'll procrastinate for at least five of them, feeling terrible about it throughout. Give me an impossible deadline tomorrow and I become a productivity machine, with no time for anxious overthinking.
Maybe it's because I live very close to Russia and most of the people here probably don't think about the war every day, but the strategic reality of this situation makes all these privacy arguments so trivial.
I need to see this happen to someone other than Durov to consider that it's not about the war. While it's only Durov then I really don't think he's discussing privacy issues with the French - they are discussing his access to Telegram's systems and his ability and willingness to give that to the allies of Ukraine. Likewise in Russia they are not discussing the privacy issues, they are trying to lock Durov out Telegram's systems and the military and intelligence services are working on alternative ways to communicate, and meanwhile the effectiveness on the battlefield of the Russian army is compromised.
I'm not saying the French aren't serious about the charges they've published but they're hardly the main point.
There's plenty in the media about the use of Telegram by the the Russian military and intelligence services, as well as politicians. For example: https://www.politico.eu/article/telegram-ceo-arrest-pavel-du...
“They practically detained the head of communication of the Russian army,”
I learned about ADHD for six months until I first consulted an expert about the possibility of my having it. He was able to recognise symptoms in me that I hadn't noticed.
Why?
My wife introduced me to an interesting and possibly KKK-inspired method where she would wear the duvet cover inside out, totally covering herself, and then pick up two corners of the duvet with her hands inside two corners of the cover. Then she'd reverse the cover off herself onto the duvet, from which point her method was the same as mine. I found it hilarious.
Everybody's different...
2. WhatsApp tries to get every user to accept the option to backup messages and photos to Google Drive, where they sit unencrypted and accessible by Google. Even if you reject that option yourself, your correspondents are likely to have enabled it (if only just to stop WhatsApp from nagging about it) and so your messages are available for Google to read. Example of why this can be bad: https://www.vice.com/en/article/zm8q43/paul-manafort-icloud-...
3. Google Photos asks WhatsApp users if they'd like it to back up their WhatsApp photos. Even if you reject that option, your correspondents may have enabled it and so your photos are stored online unencrypted and accessible by Google.
4. Why should we limit what Google and Facebook know about us? Google and Facebook influence our behaviour for the benefit of their paying customers. Their computer systems are too powerful for our minds. They work against us, not for us. Companies like Facebook will come to be seen like tobacco companies, except that the harm is as from mind altering drugs. There is a documentary on Netflix called The Social Dilemma which explains this well. The polarisation of societies and the spread of conspiracy theories are some of the effects. The only defence is to disengage.
5. Read about Chinese-style social credit to understand why you want companies like Facebook and Google to know as little about you as possible. This is a good overview: https://nhglobalpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/chin...
