People have been using tobacco for many thousands of years. if they want to use it knowing full well the consequences, they should be able to. Unless we also ban things like skydiving, rock climbing, and fast cars and motorcycles, it makes no sense to me.
Why isn't prohibiting something known to cause harm a good thing? Plus, smoking doesn't just harm the individual doing it, its harm extends to those in the immediate (and sometimes not so immediate) vicinity, as well as the environment. There is literally zero good to gain from it.
Exactly, just as there are rational reasons to dislike Bayer/Monsanto's influence on the business of agriculture without being hysterical about "Frankenfood", you can be against OpenAI, etc. without thinking AI is going to destroy civilization or whatever.
How close are you to saying that a repair manual "knows" how to fix your car? I think the conversation here is really around word choice and anthropomorphization.
The problem is, people think word choice influences capabilities: when people redefine "reasoning" or "consciousness" or so on as something only the sacred human soul can do, they're not actually changing what an LLM is capable of doing, and the machine will continue generating "I can't believe it's not Reasoning™" and providing novel insights into mathematics and so forth.
Similarly, the repair manual cannot reason about novel circumstances, or apply logic to fill in gaps. LLMs quite obviously can - even if you have to reword that sentence slightly.
I was married for a decade. Little of that was happy. (We both made the mistake of marrying each other, then compounded it by both being afraid to be first to admit to having noticed.)
Everyone noticed - and of course I've seen it from the other side, too, many times. You can't hide when people are together who don't want to be. That always shows.
Sorry, no. I was married 18 years and then divorced. Some people weren’t surprised, many were. Ditto for other couples I’ve seen divorce. You can never know what goes on behind closed doors in someone else’s marriage.
Try not to develop AI psychosis before it does. I have had the regrettable privilege of seeing that close at hand quite recently, and it looks like something that can get to be extremely difficult to come back from. Like digging a hole so deep, you end up pulling it in after you.
One might insightfully argue the whole point of the psychopath is precisely that it doesn't show. I recommend Cleckley, whose definition is seminal in The Mask of Sanity, [1] originally 1941 but prefer his 1988 fifth edition especially for its rather disconsolate preface. But even a cursory review of either will trivially show the comparison does not hold.
Begin your reading on page 346, at the heading "Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love." After that, review Section Two for its many examples of psychopathic (mis)behavior in the marital context.
IIRC we realized that automating "merge" past a certain point was kicking the human rectification can down the road (for our specific use case, etc). Being able to say "here's where you handle the diff or wipe the previous version" at a macro level saved time and sanity.
With documents in general there are common workflows from the paper era that just haven't aged gracefully.
I can deconstruct my workflow to the point where the benefits of plugging outdated hardware into the project are calculable. Info, transformation, etc I don't need in near real time feels like it's trending towards the price of electricity.
Since I've been looking at this situation from a resource point of view for a bit I see obvious savings in slowing down certain accepted processes. For example, an entity that continuously updates needs to be continuously scraped while an entity that publishes once a day needs to be hit once a day.
reply