What saddens me about this topic is the large amount of hatred coming at cyclists from drivers in the opinion page of the local newspaper (Seattle Times). Why not have some gratitude they are not contributing to traffic, not taking up parking, not polluting, etc. It comes across as pure madness.
I think this is probably a bit selective, but I understand the sentiment. When I'm cycling I keep seeing awful drivers, and when I'm driving I keep seeing reckless and inconsiderate cyclists.
The awful infrastructure (poorly considered bike lanes, at best) doesn't make it easy to co-exist, either.
I’m in the middle of this right now. They detail a scenario that starts off pretty convincing but takes a turn into a sci-fi feel when this fictional model starts strategizing on how to escape its containment.
The core argument is that these models aren’t crafted as much as they’re grown. They show examples where models display not desires but preferences (e.g. lying and cheating to testers) and that the AI companies aren’t able to control it even interpret those preferences.
If LLMs get to a super intelligence phase (big if there), the gap between its capabilities and our understanding of it grows even larger.
Current models already strategize how to escape their containment, they’re just not capable enough yet to succeed and not misaligned enough yet to try very hard. But yeah I think the book tries to show a lower bound of what a superintelligence could do, not a prediction of what it will do, because indeed predicting something much more capable than we are is much harder than predicting the outcome (it wins)
> When we ponder upon this, it boggles down to the fact that it's notoriously hard to distinguish "value creation" vs "value extraction".
This is an excellent frame to think about this. When we look at the increasing financialization of consumer spending (subscriptions, buy now pay later, rebates, club discounts, etc.), we can think of it as disguising value extraction as value creation.
I have to wonder, too, if this partially describes why "Make America Great Again" has been such an effective slogan. The greatness that most Americans long to return to is a time where a larger middle class was able to more easily pay for health care, housing, and other needs.
In the United States, stochastic terrorism is neither a statutory offense nor a term of art in criminal codes; it is an analytic label used in scholarship and practitioner writing to describe probabilistic risks of violence linked to rhetoric. Recent legal and critical surveys stress that usage is heterogeneous and contested, and that the concept's value lies in describing a structure of communication and harm rather than in supplying a justiciable element test.[7]
By contrast, U.S. incitement law is anchored in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which protects advocacy short of speech that is intended to produce imminent lawless action and likely to do so. Stochastic accounts often concern non-directive, cumulative rhetoric whose effects materialize unpredictably, making the Brandenburg imminence and likelihood prongs difficult to satisfy absent clear exhortation.[2]
The goal of those pushing the “stochastic terrorism” scam has always been either outright criminalization of the speech or (at a minimum) public-private coordinated suppression of the speech. Don’t fall for it.
I know I feel enervated by the videos I see from MN. More and more by at the speed of my scrolling.
And, video instances depict the behaviors of agents who, in the moment of encounter, are able to rapidly escalate situations.
I would argue the latter is agents learning tricks and shortcuts from other agents on how to dominate. The more unrestricted and unaccountable they are, the more individuals are emboldened to learn and strive for the approbation of their superiors. They have a quota.
It’s unsettling to think that humanity has lost knowledge it once had, but it happens all the time. Anyone here know how to harness a horse to a buggy?
Speaking as someone who lives near Amish country, with friends who enjoy carriage racing... Yes, lots of people do.
It's not certain that much knowledge has been lost, although much of it is in "endangered" status of preservation. There's a kind of silk netting made from the hairlike tufts of a certain species of clams, only practiced by two people IIRC.
Some lost knowledge is being rediscovered. A well-known example is making Damascus steel; it's now so ordinary you can order it online.
What? We build skyscrapers and supersonic jets and computer chips with nanometer precision now. We haven't "lost" anything. This is just blind worship to some ancient, primitive knowledge that never existed. The past 10,000 years has just been normal people living normal lives.
And, yes, I feel confident that with a few weeks, a rope, and a really good reason - almost any American could strap a horse to a buggy. It's not rocket science and countless humans have done it before.
reply