Because the AI is a cyclical prediction machine that is more akin to a simple mechanism in nature like cell reproduction than a conscious dog. What has happened here is more like the AI company put bacteria in a petri dish and only put the lid on without pushing it down and is reporting the bacteria as a super bacteria because it contaminated all the samples in the fridge.
An interesting observation I've seen is that the AI companies reporting these incidents have largely been backed by venture capital where the self funded companies developing models have largely not had these "problems".
Because there exist so many schools of programming and so many deep philosophical considerations what makes software good vs not good.
Basically, software created by programmers who are more on the artisan side often deeply encodes what they value in life and what they don't.
So, finding a "good" programmer for a company means finding someone who is skilled in programming, and who has very compatible deep opinions about life and everything.
Also, many exceptional programmers are not good, obedient workers in a "software factory"; this is another consideration that you have to keep in mind.
I did prompt it. Let's Encrypt still doesn't issue .onion certificates :) Onion Services already provide end-to-end encryption and service authentication anyway. Tor currently lists DigiCert and HARICA for publicly trusted onion certs. I actually use a HARICA certificate on the onion mirror of this very blog, so I promise HTTPS on onions has crossed my mind before.
I think the problem here is that we have a bias for those who agree with us that outweighs our patience in searching for oppositional opinions that are well founded. From a liberal bubble it is quite hard to find conservative viewpoints that aren't based on unobserved apriori belief or strawman arguments. It feels like being a heavyweight surrounded by lightweights and it makes me feel like I need a better sparring partner, I just can't find one...
> I think the problem here is that we have a bias for those who agree with us that outweighs our patience in searching for oppositional opinions that are well founded.
This is a very agreeable statement, but I'd add that politics is not about finding the Kantian truth of what's best for everyone (inside the country? globally? also immigrants? lazy and ugly natives?).
It's about balancing interests. Of course, the idea of free market democracy was/is that both goals eventually converge.
I'm thinking you're meaning like "politics is about trying to understand/impact what could plausibly occur", whereas the "truth" you mention is inherantly unconcerned with that, but I think there's also value in finding and debating it.
What's implementation without a target? Is politics concerned with improving conditions for people, or is it just balancing enough interests that we don't start killing eachother?
It's shades of both I think, and there's fierce disagreement about both the global optimum and how to or if it's worth getting there
I thought about balancing the interests of those who have power, by all means short of war.
And of course this begs the question who has power and who should have power.
The will to improve living conditions comes from the interests of those who have political power, in my view. You can say because of democracy if you like. Or, more cynically, dependence on labor and consumption (Fordism), or, more idealistically, ethical values in powerful people themselves, and all of that are nuances and not absolutes I guess.
But I wouldn't say that my definition was precise.
I just wanted to point out that it is not a given for politics to have the goal of optimizing utilitarian interests, maximizing wellbeing or long-term goals such as protecting people.
In other words, participants in politics do not only discuss how things should be achieved, but also what should be achieved.
If that makes sense: this is what I meant by "balancing powers". I'm not sure right now how to map it to the two poles you describe.
Or is it all a nice story that matches the scifi we have been consuming for the past 50+ years. If these LLMs are all trained on the same data, what do they gain from "sharing information" on a chat board. This sounds like what humans with different backgrounds would do when they cosplay as computer hackers.
Each of those agents ends up making "decisions" that lead it to look at some things over others. Given infinite the same agent could eventually fully explore all those options, but each one explores things a bit differently due to different forks in the road due to randomness in token generation. Thus sharing information is useful.
Meanwhile in the US the laws are being changed to protect the wealthy, while the current administration is siphoning value of national assets into their own pockets. The poorer the country, the more likely this is to happen. I wonder how long it will take for warlords to set up shop in Kansas...
An interesting observation I've seen is that the AI companies reporting these incidents have largely been backed by venture capital where the self funded companies developing models have largely not had these "problems".