jfyi
If that means taking chunks of it because he can't be a responsible steward, so be it. It would behoove him to get on board before that is necessary.
They can't. This is an "anti-consciousness" qualia argument adapted to a general purpose anti-ai argument.
They are arguing that meaning doesn't come from the accurate reproduction of information, but from the subjective, lived experience behind the words. That subjectivity can't be defined, it's the whole point. It will never be defined, no matter how far along we come.
It's both, I think. It seems to me that it happens during periods of fast technological advancement. We just happen to be living through a sustained period of that.
The historical precedent is that it slows down again after people get a chance to take in the new reality. I am not sure how comforting that is.
That's great and all, but if policy is created for the lowest common denominator because of these 100 dopamine-depleted donkeys, is it going to impact me?
You might or might not miss that hobbyist web page. I can't say for certain, but I do know that most of my self learning explicitly includes going over the history of the topic.
Or you know, same scenario, but you are looking for information on how quanta work. You really can't make sense of the first 10 pages of google results, but you happen on "Motion Mountain" on the 11th page and you end up spending the next two years telling people the universe is made of little knots.
If that sounds like a pretty specific example, it's because it's a real one of someone I knew. I don't think the tool here is going to massively impact the quality. The person's judgement will play a way heavier role in that.
Do you think this guy has the technical depth to make these connections? He's working off what he can see, and he will likely grow old and die still lacking that understanding. So will a vast majority of users of these services.
What you are seeing is people realigning with a baseline of their reality. They have to trust what they are being told on this by someone, and they need to figure out who and how amid malicious actors that are trying to bend their beliefs.
It's good to see push back against this narrative that is trying to develop that this isn't any kind of big deal.
This has been every machine on the internet compromised for at least 12 hours and probably some that are not going to ever get patched.
What if it's the Starbucks at 1730 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20006 for an extended period of time? Compounded with other security issues like password reuse...
We can always draw a line and say, "that's not practical". The assessment an attacker is likely to do is going to be "is this practical inside my budget for the value I hope to acquire?" or maybe even just "waow, lulz".
Do you think he realizes he will be discarded?
Really, what has happened here is that you have failed to give an alternative interpretation. Your entire argument stands on your ability to do so.
I already went over the relevance to extreme wealth in another comment, I encourage you to address it there.
Isn't the exact opposite problem much more prevalent here? Namely, that extreme wealth simply buys access and exceptions to these ethical teachings.
Do we pick something properly secure and nail our asses to the wall if it is ever found out, or do we pick something that looks like negligence so it can be shrugged off even if it makes discovery more likely?
Add to that eMudhra's quick exit, stage left. There is definitely something that smells rotten here.
I see this more as "we didn't know this was so complex and the juice no longer looks worth the squeeze."
But let's put that aside, the negativity really comes from the fact that every time I have seen it brought up in real life, it is being wielded like a cudgel by a person not practicing what is in the book. It is effectively corporate short hand for "you need to learn how to be a better servant".
I'm with you, but let's just say it.
People, as a whole, don't want to make the changes we all know would make the world better.
People, as individuals? While there are exceptions, the reality is a classic tragedy of the commons. Individuals generally won't accept a short-term drop in their standard of living while watching their neighbors refuse to do the same.
It is what it is, frankly. We can and will change our lifestyles at the very last possible moment. Let's hope it's enough.
I don't have a problem with them publishing. I don't have a problem with the process and how they are interacting with it. I am delighted that they are actually acting as stewards of these works.
All that aside, they should be paying the people verifying the problems. The thing that really gets me is that we know anything published in the process of verifying this is going to be vacuumed up into the next training session.
Also, you'd do better if you assumed good faith.
Wait, I guess I missed the "more", that kind of puts a damper on the whole thing.
Seriously though, security will continue to be an issue, always. Even if it was perfect, the benefits of it will not be applied uniformly. There will also be the same technology being improperly used causing new exploitables to go live.