> An AI agent tried to commit some code to an open-source project and the human on the project rejected the code, so the AI agent spread false rumors about the person. There was relatively low danger, but the AI agent was no longer controllable and didn’t have an owner — not domesticated. That’s a fox.
Excuse me? iirc in that case, that agent was deployed by a person and running on their hardware. Sure it was acting outside of it's guidelines, but i assume when a dog bites sometime saying "i never told him to do that" doesn't fly.
Can anyone give insight as to how defending from a civil suit can cost $800,000? That's an ASTOUNDING amount of money for a case between basically 2 individuals, what eats up that amount?
I'm 100% with you on the ethics, but I gotta ask: would this behavior be different under a different economic system? The only 2 reasons I can see it being stopped are either a government enforced regulation, or a public push against it, and neither of these are linked to economics at all.
100% agree. Every time i read an article similar to this, i see it as a pro-pain propaganda article almost. I highly doubt every 1% of chronic pain suffers have their pain caused primarily from a psychological issue instead of a physical one. It's easy to say "you have to learn to live with the pain and manage it mentally" when you're not the one being stabbed, every hour. every day.
> So if it turns out Dataroom's developers are all Claude fans, and Claude is copying Papermark code, then it's just a normal license violation. LLMs do not launder copyright.
That's an easy case, but a more interesting question to me is if there wasn't any direct source code access (similar to an open source example I can't remember the name of atm). If you give an LLM requirements matching the copyrighted products capabilities, and it doesn't have Internet access, and it spits out different code that accomplishes the same stuff papermarks product does, do you believe courts would allow that, and copyrighted could be laundered legally?
The author claims that this kind of images shouldn't be in the training data, and agree or disagree with that, I'm unsure how much removing it would actually prevent such images from being generated. AI can certainly cobble disparate concepts together quite well, it seems unlikely violent and visceral images couldn't be regenerated from other non-violent content.
They mention the Nuclear Forces Treaty which manages to accomplish this for a similarly difficult problem, so i believe this is technicality a solvable problem, it's just a matter of political will.
The restrictions this author mentions about amazon are incorrect. You can use the card to get an amazon credit and then buy any amount on amazon and use your normal credit card PLUS this credit amount.
Am i missing something, or isn't there already a law saying it's illegal to 3d print firearms there? So this is making it illegal to break the law???? Is there going to be a 3rd law criminalizing the bypass of 3D printer gun blocking bypass blockers?
And yet sometimes the consequences ARE too severe to ignore. Nuclear war is a serious concept and it's carefully investigated and attempted to be controlled by a lot of powerful people. Why is this situation different? Because it's unlikely? So is nuclear war.
I'm kinda confused as to _what_, exactly this post is saying? Is it saying that alignment needs to be better? That seems strictly pro-safetyism. But he talks about Eliezer's ethics negatively, so does he not believe that AI is a world-ending risk? If he just believes that AI is not that dangerous and just needs some minor "correctly done" alignment i don't think his stance is meaningful as a anti-both-sides perspective because that's basically equivalent to status quo.
There are none that are reliably usable by actual porn companies at this moment. Check pornhub, you can only subscribe to them via bitcoin and direct bank payments.
This sounds bad enough that it makes me wonder what the punishment for breaking the rules in jail is. If you can't sleep in a certain direction, what are they going to do if you refuse to obey? Or even can't obey because you don't speak Japanese?
Yep that's about what i managed to get out of it as well. If you define AI as a simulation of a mapmaker, it can't be a real mapmaker. But they are never able to prove that it IS only a simulation, instead of an actual mapmaker.
I've attempted desperately to understand this paper after thoroughly reading it and have made 0 progress. Can anyone who does understand it attempt to explain?
Currently my understanding is that this paper is claiming that "concepts" are a fundamental building block of experience (which relates to consciousness), and can only be built by a mapmaker which is something that directly converts continuous physical phenomena into discrete tokens. But I couldn't get further into how that related to consciousness.
EDIT: the paper seems to be assuming that something simulating a mapmaker, or the process of doing it, can by nature not be a mapmaker since performing alphabetization is inherently something that must be "instantiated". How do they confirm if something is doing simulation vs if it's actually instantiating it? How can you tell the difference? They say how, much like simulating photosynthesis will not produce glucose, simulating mapmaking won't produce concepts. But you can't measure concepts, they're intangible, so you can't differentiate simulating mapmaking vs a real mapmaker.
Excuse me? iirc in that case, that agent was deployed by a person and running on their hardware. Sure it was acting outside of it's guidelines, but i assume when a dog bites sometime saying "i never told him to do that" doesn't fly.