I honestly never got why the belief that if you used this line of reasoning in practice, you were just a bad guy, that thought they were a good one, never seems to be a more common belief
I mean it pops up in media a lot, either as misguided, or deceptive characters
The point is you can justify almost anything on the basis of defining yourself as the 'good guy'.
Take the US recent assassinations of Iranian leadership. Objectively unilaterally assassinating other countries leaders is wrong - but somehow it's fine if you have a good guy/bad guy lense.
One of the problems here is huge swathes of material that the AI will have ingested includes this kind of exceptionalism thinking - it's particularly deeply rooted in Western culture generally and US culture in particular.
The problem isn't so much whether the good guy/bad guy allocation is corrrect - rather that it's very existence in the training set is deeply dangerous - as all it takes is one single classification to happen and suddenly everything is for the greater good.
> Objectively unilaterally assassinating other countries leaders is wrong
Why? If the leader is responsible for atrocities, then why would it be wrong to kill them? Especially if their removal would result in a more liberal leader replacing them, and not just chaos or more bloodshed.
In the case of Iran, there was no evidence of that, but as a general rule leaders should not be a protected class.
As someone who spent a lot of time supporting users and understanding their challenges with these tools, there's a lot of can you do X vs how can I do X, at least a 10x if not 100x difference.
IE: Model do this for me vs teach me.
Enough that I know people who have built businesses purely training people.
I do wonder whether you're comparing two different versions of chinese products?
IE, you're seeing and buying things they're selling directly, so they need to manage quality control, vs what is being sold on amazon, potentially a 3rd party seller who's cutting corners to make a nicer margin?
The problem with "it's hard to believe" is that this is an area where I'm not even sure how to effectively estimate the counterposition, I've seen things that I thought were interesting get cancelled or have no follow up all the time, and it makes sense, no idea if it will matter, or even work, and even if it does, how much will it cost to realise any value?
Who knows how often really impactful tech is gated behind some non-obvious thing which we never follow up on.
I mean Douglas Engelbart basically bet his entire career behind the Mother of All Demos[0], if it had flopped, modern computing as we know it would be fundamentally different, same with Hiroo Kinoshita and Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography[1][2], we just would have had Moore's law falling off a cliff.
To add to what you're saying, that's also ignoring that having the time or ability to build really complex things in assembly is harder, higher level languages making things easier also enables people to do more complex things
Love that you're doing this, this has been on the backburner in my head for a long time, but I've never got around to it and this makes it worth looking at again.
Are there any downsides or issues that come with this setup? Easy ways to disable it for specific sites or temporarily? Especially for non-technical users?
I have split up the data model into a handful of layers in order to separate concerns. The evidentiary layer are the raw bits - the media, sources, clippings, photos, etc. From there I derive "personas", which are the (incomplete and possibly inaccurate) representations of people from those media bits. Above that is the curation layer, where the curator takes those personas and compiles persons from them.
So if there are a bunch of articles that talk about someone's birthday but a couple give conflicting data, that is all present and recorded in the evidentiary layer, and it is the responsibility of the curator to decide which is the actual birthday for that person.
edit: the "below/above" terminology is a dependency relationship. The facts undergird the conclusions drawn from them. To flip that relationship would be to "retcon" facts to fit the conclusions a curator has already drawn, which would be a mistake.
It would be the greatest irony if failing to manage the economic fallout of the coming AI revolution had a larger negative impact than the benefit it brings
We might just run into the worst recession in history as the heavily skewed service economy quickly runs out of customers who can afford to pay for it
We're already several years into the worst economic depression in history. People aren't having children because they cannot afford a home. But it can get worse of course.
There's nothing extreme about my statement. People have just adapted themselves into extinction, which is what happens to you when you don't have children.
Food is cheap and plentiful, which is why people are still denying that it is the worst economic depression in history.
So you're saying the complete lack of evidence of economic depression is a mere distraction from the reality that the evidence is just hiding? Is the depression in the room with us now? Can I speak to it?
The collapsed birth rates is the evidence. The enormous disparity between worker productivity and worker compensation is the evidence. Economic recession doesn't always spell hunger, it can have other consequences.
But seeing the way you are talking, I think you will be uninterested in any and all evidence and more interested in blowing off steam on the internet.
Silksong is like this, there are other games where they release patches for years?
Is done no longer supported? I ask because take any paradox grand strategy game, if I understand your rubric, they're done only if they are no longer the supported mainline game, IE Crusader Kings 2 is done, as 3 is where all the support is going?
To me, done means: Is there any other major content or features coming. Its not necessarily about support but, with sk=ilksong for isntance, yes the game is released but if you play it today, vs some time in the future once all the dlc is out, you are effectively playing two sepereate games. I like to make sure I play a game only once all of the content that will be in it is released.
Obviously this is imperfect because look at the witcher 3, after more than a decade they announced a new DLC (Which is a tie in to the new game but still)
I honestly never got why the belief that if you used this line of reasoning in practice, you were just a bad guy, that thought they were a good one, never seems to be a more common belief
I mean it pops up in media a lot, either as misguided, or deceptive characters
reply