I.e., when challenged, defenders of concept assert the safer, easy to defend definition
In reality the actual meaning of the concept is practiced
A lot of the time though, people are pretty innocent and just don't know that there is literature behind these things. They just think equity always means some ideal they hold in their heads. And they'll see egregious examples of it being exercised and think "that's not real equity!" when in reality, it is, and "real equity" is not defined by their understanding of it, but by some academic literature that ultimately guides the implementation/practice at the high levels.
Using this logic, every writer who has learned to read and write by reading books, or every artist who improved their craft by studying works, or every musician who learned the piano by practicing pieces, is also "stealing" in whatever they "originally" create due to learning via pattern recognition "tiny pieces of every work" in their data set. It's ridiculous to compare agents that generalize well to "stealing" pieces of the works they used to learn the generalizations. Obviously if an artist memorizes a painting in their data set and reproduces it, or an AI spits out the exact image instead of original works based on what it has learned, then that is theft. But generalization is not theft. At least in my view. To assume otherwise leads to some very dysfunctional logical conclusions
Makes sense. If you're a genius in a country of people who make worse decisions (IQ/culture/other), you may ne worse off than an average person in a country with an average average decision making level
Well stated. I will try not to worry about this and to trust God. It makes sense that that would be the antidote to that which is caused by a lack of God. Thank you.
> I would like to see what happens to your "free speech beliefs and how they don't affect you" if you happened to accidentally say something wrong on a video and then be bullied by thousands of nutties on the internet, including doxxing and swatting you on a regular basis.
Another comment supporting pain and suffering for the people they disagree with. "You are wrong that free speech does not have consequences" is a common anti-free-speech strawman, a dishonest tactic, and is not even remotely what I said
I am worried we are currently headed down a similar terrible path.
In another thread about Ireland's new law to jail people for "hateful content" on their personal devices, when I said that I believed future measures could go further, sliding towards mass murder, due to the ideologues believing hate speech is literally violence and genocide (because the logical conclusion is to then allow violence to be used to stop the ill defined "hate speech"), I got 1 comment supporting consequences for free speech, citing the common anti-free-speech strawman "you are wrong in that free speech doesn't have consequences" and another comment supporting "the removal of bigots from society, violently if necessary" [1]
Read it for yourself, maybe I am misinterpreting it? I don't want to feed into some culture war flame war thing, but this is extremely disturbing to me. It's not about the comments, it is about the underlying beliefs of these ideologues in power, and the logical conclusion of their beliefs. Historically, it seems to me that peoples' behavior can be predicted by taking their beliefs to their logical conclusions.
The Overton window will go further than that due to the beliefs of the ideologues pushing to remove "hate speech". They believe that hate speech is literal violence and genocide, as bad as murder or mass murder. I posted a comment warning that this anti-hate-speech legislation may go further as time goes by, towards killing of people, and even further from there, and got 1 comment supportint the "violent removal of bigots from society". These people believe you are committing genocide with your words, why wouldn't we expect them to act as if they actually are preventing genocide?
Here is the comment, before they change or delete it:
Tanjreeve 8 hours ago | parent | next [–]
Society might be a fair amount improved if we had a strategy where we aimed to remove bigots, violently if necessary. What value do they actually bring?
(At the time of me posting this comment, the only replies were the one above and another supporting hate speech laws and citing a common anti free speech strawman along the lines of "you are wrong that your free speech does not mean freedom from consequences")
I just realized, from your comment, how much power companies will have if they start including "emotional manipulation" in their dark pattern arsenal. Which I am sure will horribly backfire in some way if used
It doesn't sound like this money is going to OpenAI exclusively, and I would guess its similar to the NSFs current SBIR but for AI (though idk, the article just mentioned "research institutes"). The NSF SBIR already gives money to for-profit companies provided the research is actually useful to society (though I don't have much experience working with them so I could be wrong)
Also, given the new tax act that is in play, isn't it basically impossible for this money to go to small businesses doing RnD? On a tangential note I am worried that this measure will just create a gradiant that consolidates more power to large businesses. Unless it is made optional to depreciate domestic RnD over 5yrs, new companies cannot use grants as funds lest they be hit with a massive tax bill and no profit to pay for it with
There are many people out there with the fixed pie fallacy who think thay if someone earns more money, it leads to others earning less money. This is how people think that kneecapping "the rich" will make the world a better place, and it can lead people to prioritize ensuring others do not become rich over ensuring that people grow the economy and make everyone better off. There are many people out there who lump producers, builders, and growers in with thieves and robbers because of this fallacy. If I grab dirt from the ground and a tomato seed from a discarded tomato and sell $5 worth of tomatoes I grow, they will think that I "stole" the $5. This does not make them bad people imo, I know many good people who have integrity and who I love who had this fallacy until I pointed it out to them.