> I think we need to draw a hard line in the sand over this.
Intended or not, this is kinda punny lol.
That aside, I agree.
Even if people do anthropomorphize AI, all you have to do is shift the analogy slightly.
If I take my service animal out in public without a leash/harness knowing that it's capable of harming a person or doing damage to property, not trained to be perfectly obedient, and doesn't comprehend fundamental human morals, if that animal decides to trash a businesses property or maul another person, there's no question that the owner of the animal should be held accountable for those actions.
In this context it's not one individual stealing from another. This is a temporary reallocation of a dormant resource within the system to a more critical process that requires those resources to perform its function and ensure the system remains stable. In this framing I'd be inclined to argue not taking the RAM would be the unethical choice.
Unless this company was actively working against humanities survival, then the ethical thing to do would be to steal the RAM and not use it!
You're spending a ton of effort to try to craft implausible scenarios like the RAM only being "temporarily" taken or the work it was used for being critical. I could just as easily claim that the one who's RAM was taken had critical humanitarian work that didn't get done in time because their RAM was stolen so their coworker could play the latest game that required 16 MB. The actual facts that have been established make neither of these less likely than the other because they're both incredibly unlikely, and it's kind of bizarre that you seem to think otherwise.
> Sounds like the neighbor could have just taken the RAM from their own computer out and claimed someone stole it and then called IT to provide them with replacement and then opened it back to and put theirs in.
That would be the ideal way _if_ that person had a couple of hours to spare. In my meaningless anecdotal experience someone that would need to resort to this likely wasn't planning to do it.
More likely they were working on their TPS reports and it got so big they couldn't finish the work before their middle manager would be expecting it in 45 minutes so I'm a panic they sneak in and grab the extra RAM leading to them finishing the report with 1 minute to spare saving the company from insolvency!
> Seems pretty selfish to disrupt someone else's day for this instead of your own; they could have gotten back up and running before you did since they could have put in a help desk ticket before you even got in.
On principle I agree but it's not the only option! The real pro wouldn't have just taken the RAM and walked away, they would have taken the RAM and then submitted a ticket letting them know you noticed another employee's PC case open and when you looked noticed the sticks were missing.
Bonus points if they include a blurb highlighting the importance of that person's PC being functional before they get in the office since that PC has the super important customer files needed for the big meeting in an hour and if they don't have them the company is going to have to make cuts and will likely start with the IT department.
> More likely they were working on their TPS reports and it got so big they couldn't finish the work before their middle manager would be expecting it in 45 minutes so I'm a panic they sneak in and grab the extra RAM leading to them finishing the report with 1 minute to spare saving the company from insolvency!
I don't think it's more likely that this single action saved the company from insolvency than they were just impatient and selfish. I honestly don't really believe you do either.
> On principle I agree but it's not the only option! The real pro wouldn't have just taken the RAM and walked away, they would have taken the RAM and then submitted a ticket letting them know you noticed another employee's PC case open and when you looked noticed the sticks were missing.
Yes, that also immediately occurred to me. Being less selfish is good, but not being selfish at all is better.
Just to be clear, I'm more or less playing devil's advocate here as an exercise for myself. There's simply not enough context in the story to be able to have a concrete opinion on it for me personally and creating hypotheticals like the one in my reply have been a great way for me to explore concepts more thoroughly so I can form a more nuanced opinion to apply in the real world when the need arises.
> I don't think it's more likely that this single action saved the company from insolvency than they were just impatient and selfish. I honestly don't really believe you do either.
Come on, that was obviously a made up scenario for the purposes of illustrating a point complete with a small nod to the TPS reports from Office Space movie.
The point was that, in my experience, the people in these environments that engage in this sort of act typically do so because they believe their individual situation justifies the action despite the effects it will have on someone else's ability to perform their function.
> Yes, that also immediately occurred to me. Being less selfish is good, but not being selfish at all is better.
That assumes that the selfish action is inherently "bad" or "negative" and that it's being done in a vacuum.
Sure, the worker taking the RAM is benefiting at the expense of the other workers time but you can imagine any number of scenarios where the benefit/cost of the act are greatly outweighed by the overall importance of the outcome that the act produced.
> The point was that, in my experience, the people in these environments that engage in this sort of act typically do so because they believe their individual situation justifies the action despite the effects it will have on someone else's ability to perform their function.
Yes, and we have a word for people who think that their needs outweigh those of others: selfish.
> That assumes that the selfish action is inherently "bad" or "negative" and that it's being done in a vacuum.
I don't even know what this means. Being selfish is bad and negative, yes.
> Sure, the worker taking the RAM is benefiting at the expense of the other workers time but you can imagine any number of scenarios where the benefit/cost of the act are greatly outweighed by the overall importance of the outcome that the act produced.
I can imagine them. I don't think they're particularly likely compared to someone being selfish, because there are many selfish people in the world, and almost no circumstances where getting more RAM immediately by stealing it from someone else is warranted.
LOL. So here is the truth: I named it because my oldest son was really into the “67” meme. I was trying to come up with a domain name, everything decent seemed taken, and chess67.com was available.
I figured it would just be a temporary name until I came up with something better.
Then it stuck. I will say it has been easy for my customers to remember the name!
> They have all the logs, URLs accessed and inter-agent communication. What they are saying is that no agents accessed their work during the effort, but that they have no idea if any of their chats have somehow made it into the training data the model was produced with.
> It's entirely possible OIA scrapers have picked up their work somehow, and then it was anonymized using some outsourcing effort.
Those two statements seem at odds with each other... Your stance is that they have enough insight into their agents behavior (leaving aside the agent sandbox escapes) that they can be certain none of the work was accessed but then conveniently don't have the ability to retroactively search the corpus of training data that they are feeding to this new model?
reply