I don't think OpenAI is doing anything particularly sinister. But whatever OpenAI has today a bad actor will have in October. This horseshit is moving rather fast. Sorry, but in two years going from failing the turing test to being able to have a conversation with an AI agent nearly indistinguishable from a person is going to be destabilizing.
Emotions are an axiom to convey feelings, but also our sensitivity to human emotions can be a vector for manipulation.
Especially when you consider the bottom line that this tech will be ultimately be horned into advertising somehow (read: the field dedicated to manipulating you into buying shit).
I know these are the times of big machine learning models, but my favourite kind of AI are the classics like CSAT solvers, minimax with alpha beta pruning, markov chains, and good old search trees. These algorithms have superhuman powers solving so many challenging games and problems just by converting the problem space into a search tree. Love it.
I agree. But platform dependant throttling should be prevented by good regulation, if that means Youtube's business model is less viable I frankly don't care.
All I know is I'm keeping my eyes open for their next swing at remote attestation. If you follow the money, it's a logical step.
Never said that Khadr should've been extradited, he shouldn't have at all and I support the Canadian government decision. But the claims of the Indian government against Nijjar are also dubious which points to the likelihood that any diplomatic transfer was a non-starter.
Of course, the difference here was that the USA attempted a diplomatic process and did not execute a citizen on Canadian soil.
Look up Omar Khadr [1]. If the United States couldn't get an extradition for that kid, could India get one for Nijjar? I doubt it. Not saying as justification for the alleged actions of the Indian government, not in the slightest. I only suggest that Canada wouldn't necessarily co-operate eagerly.
Perhaps the ability to work fewer hours. As the number of 'human' jobs reduce (consider the number of bullshit jobs that exist already). I would gladly accept this trade off. To me, time is more precious than things. Of course, on the presupposition that we can live somewhere between basic needs met and the modern luxury of today's North American. I can have lot's of fun cheaply: going outside, playing cards, playing music. Maybe I am being naive.
It's irrelevant how good your work actually is, only how well it is perceived. Take pride in your work, but understand that others are not responsible for making your contributions known. I feel this rule applies in relationships as well.
> The problem is, this financial backing and support is via VCs, who will steer the project to close it all up again.
How exactly could they meaningfully do that? Genuine question. The issue with the OpenAI business model is that the collaboration within academia and open source circles is creating innovations that are on track to out-pace the closed source approach. Does OpenAI have the pockets to buy the open source collaborators and researchers?
I'm truly cynical about many aspects of the tech industry but this is one of those fights that open source could win for the betterment of everybody.
Even if what you say is true, it's not guaranteed that future societies will forever be in this age of loneliness. Technology has moved fast and there will be growing pains, but I don't see evidence that we are incapable of changing culturally.
These conversations are happening around the world, many people are unhappy living their lives in technological bubbles and many want things to change.
Start telling Grandma never to answer the phone.