Obviously. It may even be a key to a no longer active account.
Naturally "a stolen key" here means that the key has access to something worth stealing. And my point was that there's far more worth stealing than your users' private data which many companies don't value that much.
> Most feel-good pieces on AI make the same mistake, which is looking at where the ball is and not where it's going.
Humans have a bad track record predicting where a technology is going.
I do not know where AI heads in the next 5-25 years (I have my hypotheses, but they are likely off, too), but I see a useful tool that allows many people to experiment with and try things that they could not before and I do not see why should I subscribe to the doomer view.
As far as the moral character of the leaders: that's common, too. Many luminaries were, based on recollections, seen as pretty bad human beings and that didn't run off on their inventions. My 2c.
Being a doomer sucks, man. But I see a lot of issues with your way of thinking, which I was basically getting at in the post you replied to. Let me explain:
Today it's a useful tool. But in not too long--a few years, perhaps--this tool will be able to outsmart you. If you think this is definitely not going to happen, then okay--we see the progress in LLMs differently. I see machines which, in a matter of three years, went from being able to do basic proofs, to math Olympiad problems, to century-old Millennium problems. I see no reason why progress will slow down.
Any "tool" which is that much smarter than you is no tool, any more than you are the "tool" of your pet dog.
I understand wanting to feel better and be optimistic about the future. I'm unfortunately not, and that makes a lot of people feel bad. Again, I'm sorry! I don't want to be a downer. But it's important to me that people take these risks seriously and don't minimize them with expressions like "we still have paper" and "it's a useful tool."
> But I see a lot of issues with your way of thinking, which I was basically getting at in the post you replied to.
Of course. And I am not claiming that my view is the view or even a particularly good view. It is just my personal worldview. But I think that with ups and downs, over generations and centuries, the world is on an uptrend. My parents were being driven, with their families, from their homes as kids; one of them lost an eye (as a kid) from a war; both lived through years of hunger. My grandparents saw real crap, two lived through a famine and saw many die from hunger.
But they all lived through those disruptions, worked and tried to build something better (I had to probe that information out of them; they did not even mention those things to us). I think the AI disruptions will not be nearly as painful and we will live through them just fine. Again, just a personal perspective.
> I see machines which, in a matter of three years, went from being able to do basic proofs, to math Olympiad problems, to century-old Millennium problems. I see no reason why progress will slow down.
I think what we see is LLMs picking the low hanging fruit. There is a lot of it, but I do not think we can extrapolate it. Some things will be particularly easy for LLMs to exceed humans on (like a steam engine being better in driving heavy machinery), some possible, many very hard. And humans will find new things to explore and build. We will see in 25 years (I am old and might not be alive then, but maybe I will see enough in 15).
As a side note: I do not know why you are being downvoted. I do not agree with your view, but I think it is intelligent and well written. I hope folks stop downvoting anything they disagree with and go back to downvoting on tone, not alignment.
>But I think that with ups and downs, over generations and centuries, the world is on an uptrend.
I mean if you were a dinosaur you had a 100 million year uptrend and then it was suddenly over.
Things did not becomes better on accident, in general humans have wanted a better world for themselves. There is no scientific rule that says this must remain true. We have to strive for it. And if we hand over all this to a few rich people with intelligent machines there could be a huge upset here.
> I mean if you were a dinosaur you had a 100 million year uptrend and then it was suddenly over.
Yes. But my point is that we have a major crisis (and a part of the population thinking that the current way of life is over forever), every few generations. With your analogy, the dinosaurs had "the end is nigh" and "this time is different" doomerist beliefs a million times before finally being right.
Agree fully that it is good to strive for the improvement. But there are so many different views of what the improvement would look like, so we have good folks who, when spun up by their respective leaders, focus on their differences and start fighting. Which, IMO, is almost, almost, almost always a bad way to build something better. My 2c.
Calling out doomerism as some kind of unrealistic disaster thinking is a pretty shallow understanding of the modern world and how much anti-fragility as been removed from different societies.
The world from the 90s till now has been one of rather open trade and exchange of energies like fuel. In that time the population has grown by at least 3 billion people. Billions of us depend on fuel being available every day or a countdown until there is no water or food starts. That fuel system is dependent on power being available to run things like pumps.
>doomerist beliefs a million times before finally being right.
Because you get zero chances of being wrong. Eventually humanities time will be up. I would rather that be millions of years from now rather than a few years because we collapsed under our own hubris.
All I hear when I read the “but it’s just a useful tool” takes is “hey it’s fine if we use LLMs to kill people and take away their dignity and ability to make a living because it generates documents for me”.
Why? An honest question. I generally do not care how many people work at the company. If someone organizes and builds something useful, something profitable or something beautiful why does it matter (much) whether he built it alone or hired 20 people to do it.
For example, I found that two of my favorite software products were built by a single person (I assumed medium-sized team for each). That, if anything, made me appreciate them more. My 2c.
Negligence or intent is a separate question; and, to me, much less important. The main question is whether the company is responsible for the actions of its agents. There are good arguments on both sides and settling this needs to be done first. My 2c.
For example, lack of clarity on ownership and control. When an entity A runs an agent X designed by an entity B hosted by entity C (and potentially interacting with agents X2, X3 with their own web of control) it is not clear where the responsibility for the action of X is.
I know there is a strong desire to stick it to , but for the law to be useful (and, ideally, at least somewhat fair) we need a good legal framework. Which we do not have right now; otherwise people and NGOs would be shaking that tree already even if the government is not doing that.
This has all been figured out using existing laws. In the US entity A is responsible for what they do and they can subrogate if they think others are responsible.
I’m not sure it ever makes sense to just throw up our hands and hold A harmless because their agents also use agents and it’s complicated.
Try hiring a consulting company A who subs to entity B who subs to entity C. When A does something criminal, do you think it matters if it’s actually employees or entity B or entity C. A is responsible. It may be that others are as well.
But that is how most of the companies work (and did, for centuries). Very few roles affect critical flight safety, nuclear control or other things that need a bunch of nines for reliability, written and fire-drilled fallbacks, etc.
For everything else the general mode is "can we make it work well enough". And when it breaks, well, we will curse and pry it open and either fix or rebuild it. There are many stories of a particular thing that was built long time ago by folks who are long gone and no one knows how it works or even where it physically is.
And it works fine; usually better than ensuring complete reliability from the get-go, when it is not clear if it is a long-term core feature or a kludge that will be obsolete soon. My 2c.
> I got what I needed, but feel zero accomplishment
Just a personal view, but I feel great when I get that result. I had an effing problem that was a pain but is now fixed after a short conversation. I get to check and confirm that results are good for me. And it gets done without spending hours with random tech support ("did you try reinstalling your OS"?). My 2c.
It is hard to know what works well, as everyone is different. I would look at things that seems fun. Fixing stuff, from bikes to engines? Physical therapy? Teaching kids? And so on.
For some you may be even able to leverage your software skills.
I think you are both right. But I think the parent argues that the robot still keeps it good enough. And IME significantly better than a week+ into a 2-week period between the maid services. My 2c.
Yes, US will print money to inflate debt until it can no longer do so. Yes, the realignment after it cannot get treasuries sold externalkyexternally, will be painful. But this has happened before (in the world) and will happen again. The country doesn't have to fail in the way of the USSR.
And once the dust settles the long term state will probably be better for many countries, US included. My 2c.
Perhaps it is too pessimistic, but it's the default state to fail, die in some sense, just like any other organic thing. The world doesn't have a good record of these things we've created lasting very long.
The hopeful part of me thinks that what will emerge from the disorder will be better, just like anything else that survives today that was once part of something else.
While I agree with much of what you wrote the percentage of people supporting every (or even most) decision of this administration is very small. But a large portion of the population doesn't like the alternative any better.
They said a few years ago that Trump and Biden have a chance only if they run against each other.
So it is more nuanced. We will see what the candidates in 2 years look like.
The vote is skewed because of the large number of Latinos and East Asians that have flowed into the country over the last three decades. If you tally the vote by ethnicity you'll see there's a large amount of support from the white majority (which is getting smaller every year) for these measures.
I do not think you can get the support level for specific measures from a vote. A vote is a single, crude A vs B on a large set of measures. And when a vote is between two options seen as largely abhorrent the winning basket can be a very strange one. My 2c.
reply