Culture and religion are intertwined even if separate. Western civilization is "culturally Christian" even in secular countries like France. Many places in the US are thus "culturally Protestant" even if most of their current-day population don't follow that religion.
I'm a doxastic voluntarist, as in, we think ourselves to be less able to change our beliefs than we actually are. The idea that weight loss by means other than self-discipline seems, at least to me, quite easy to choose to not believe in.
> I think for most people the intuition is something like: the state is there to protect people (in principle at least); when someone is sufficiently dangerous to others they forfeit this right and it becomes just about protecting others from them; whereupon 'vengeance' is basically permitted against them
There's no connection between "protect[ing] people" and "vengeance", The latter is not necessary for the former.
The retributive instinct should not be "fed" by the State. It is perfectly normal to have that feeling, but we should recognize it for what it is and let it stay as such. You might think this isn't possible or stable but the Nordics would prove you wrong.
"As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes)."
-Ilya Sutskever (email to Elon musk and Sam Altman, 2016)
That would be a stupid application of the rule, it would mean no developer could use an LLM for anything that already has a proprietary alternative with heavily documented internals or leaked source code.
Not so sure, if the LLM has been overfitted and can just throw back something equivalent to the original code, then it's no different from a human having seen the code and writing something similar afterwards.
On another hand, I'd be curious about Microsoft's reaction if somebody let an agent write a "perfect" Windows emulator/compatibility layer eating away at Windows's market share (assuming that's possible; since it does not exist it's probably not currently). Would not do much for kernel anti-cheats but would help for productivity software. Microsoft could either choose to say this is not a white box implementation and take down the project but it would hurt anything LLM-related since all LLM-based projects could be targeted, or let it live and eat away at Windows (I suspect they'd choose the latter because it's the shiny new thing and would probably not hurt Windows that much).
> for example repairing your tractor is illegal because of this same law.
No it's not. There has never been a case establishing that, and it's absurd on its face. The protection measures that the law makes illegal to break must control access to a copyrighted work, and you can't copyright functionality.
You see, they made it so you can't repair your tractor without circumventing a technological copy protection measure, which is illegal under DMCA 1201.
Has this been litigated, or is it just something tractor manufacturers have cooked up in the hopes that it'll stand up in court? Because I seem to recall printer manufacturers doing something similar with refilling toner cartridges and losing.
Interestingly, when reading Raymond Chen's article I thought "reservoir sampling would compare the random number (between 1 and n) to 1, not to n, because that extends more easily to picking more than one element" - and that's what the actual Windows code uses.
yes, you would have to allocate space for up to 100 file paths, but the article says
> it’s more efficient because it reduces the amount of calls into the file system, which is where the bottleneck is
Upon reading it a few times I think the article is alluding to a crappy two-pass solution where you don't store a filename but instead an index into a directory, which is flawed anyway due to being racy.
The state is made up of human beings too. I don't see why they would want most of humanity to starve. Even a power-hungry psycho wants to have people to rule over, and I don't think the average politician's neurotic traits are so extreme as to want to eliminate 99% of humanity and inherit the Earth.
Positive feedback loop (or how it called in English, idk). You just want to stay at the top, and the better political instruments you have for that, the worse governor you can allow yourself to be. And the worse governor you are, the more you develop and use such instruments. And then you can could be even worse governor. And so on, until you kill 99% of humanity because the were strongly opposing your position on the top.
I agree and I think uncertainty causes people to miss this. A dystopian world is good for no-one. The shitty things people do to each other are scarcity motivated and call me delusionally optimistic but I think a world of total and complete abundance doesn't incentivize people at the top (who are there because people at the bottom allow it) to mercy kill everyone else with AI drones.
> I think a world of total and complete abundance doesn't incentivize people at the top (who are there because people at the bottom allow it) to mercy kill everyone else with AI drones.
They will have one of the strongest incentive: to remain at the top. Moreover, it will not be that hard. In Soviet Union one honest socialist with four revolvers (major general Vasily Blokhin) could easily kill up to a thousand people per day personally (if he were laboriously working overtime). And back then there wasn't even a global governmental surveillance or AI-drones with explosives.
> They will have one of the strongest incentive: to remain at the top.
At the top of what? After all the massacres the remaining billionaires and their families would be all that's left of humanity. Who would want to rule over a human-empty, machine-led Earth for the rest of their lives? Not to mention the attitude and morality of their families and those close to them.
I can think of several billionaires who would be quite fine ruling over a devastated and machine-led earth. Their families are chosen or bred to agree with their amorality, and they and their dynastic families would rule with pleasure.
Better business for a specific company doesn't mean better markets for consumers and other participants, and we make laws to ensure the latter even if it's at the expense of the former.
reply