I totally agree with you. But, I heard a story that helps me see the other side.
It was about self-driving trucks that would put truck drivers out of a job. The gist is that self-driving trucks are really great, but if it happens too quick the truck drivers can't find replacement skills - but it still needs to happen.
I think the current conversation about AI replacing jobs is similar. It should happen. But also, there are real people who will lose their income and they need time and space to find replacement income streams
For disclosure, my current job I use AI heavily to "translate" technical and legal jargon, and I can watch, in real time, as AI gets better at my job. I might be replaced in a year or two.
Well, the point is that people shouldn't need to find replacement skills. We have robots that can grow our food, drive it to us, manufacture our clothes, etc. etc. So the only reason we're still working our asses off, is because our laws and expectations of society are wrong.
The people that lose their jobs don't need to "find replacement income streams", they need to organize in order to establish a society where we all can just work to survive and thrive, instead of enabling the richest to waste the resources of us all and destroy our environment.
So no, sorry, I'm not seeing the "other side" at all here. In my opinion the story you heard is just an attempt to (yet again) redirect the focus to machines "taking people's jobs", in order to distract from the real problem: our organization of society is completely wrong, to the benefit of certain rich people who willingly make others suffer for their gain.
People don't need or want work, they need resources. And we collectively have all the resources we need, it's just a problem of dividing fairly.
But what is the point of this? Did Musk think everyone would forgive him, turn to white-supremacy and re-vote in his patsy's associates if only they saw a weird car demo?
In my opinion, if the company is allowed to see the data and train on it, then they are also responsible for reporting stuff like this. Without knowing the data licensing agreement the lady had with Anthropic, if she agreed to letting Anthropic see her data, then they should do stuff like this. If she didn't agree, then I wouldn't condemn Anthropic for failing to report an attack
It looks inevitable to me. Technological ability ushers in the new social realities. The industrial revolution turned around how we live, intelligence on tap being able to interpret everything in real time is indeed leading down to the total surveillance state direction. I don't see anything that may stop it. You will have to run constant real-time surveillance systems on all your devices and anything that doesn't run those will be illegal, with secureboot on steroids. Due to the convenience benefits, people will willingly give access to cloud-based AI services to all their information, all their plans and documents and calendar and email and everything. And you blink twice and it all becomes mandatory, and you will be an extremist if you don't want that, because why would you have anything to hide? "Just follow the law, follow the rules, and you'll be fine", that will be the slogan.
Stories like this article have zero effect on normal people. They see a crime being prevented, which is good. You have to bring a story where a sympathetic character is getting the short end of the stick somehow.
You would still be able to not write everything into a LLM? But yea the surveillance aspect is dystopian. I would not be surprised if Facebook, twitter and co already know a lot but have simply not reported it. Now the LLM follows the rules.
While I agree that "murder" is the wrong word, there is an angle that you are missing.
Drug dealers will lace "normal" drugs with fentanyl. It gives a "different buzz". The customer knows they are buying "normal" drugs, and there is no quality control, so lacing happens. If the dealer messes up how much they lace, it is easy to add too much (because a small amount t of fentanyl goes a long way), and your customer ODs.
I’ve heard from an HSI friend that a lot more of the fentanyl deaths happen from accidental exposure in their drugs from shared surfaces. For example, somebody buying cocaine that was cut up on a table that was previously used to cut up fent and not properly sanitized.
It is typically laced into other drugs. A small amount of fentanyl is highly powerful, so if you mix it into heroine, you get a different buzz. But if you (a drug dealer, not a chemist) mess up and drop too much, then your customer will accidentally OD.
Like others have said: Tesla is the bath guy here. I'm pretty sure most people are focused on the other ways Tesla has been fing around that they just haven't gotten this far down the list.
Also, there's something special about tractors. Their owners (farmers) are both willing and capable of repairing tractors, in general, so John Deere is demonized for taking that ability away. Where as Tesla's owners are comfortable not changing their own oil, so "less" was taken away. (Yes, I know Tesla doesn't have engine oil, don't get hung up on that)
A tractor - and all farm equipment - is ridiculously expensive, the core platform is not much different from previous generations and they are used by a respected segment of our society to grow us food. All of this adds up to make JD's impact large and feel much worse than the relative nitpicks we have with many car manufacturers.
reply