Even if his 1T is speculative and undeserved he still has extreme power from that wealth. And there’s no indication that the bottom will fall out any time soon, so I think the lamenting is justified.
Because I believe we all deserve to have a relatively equal say in how society should function, and the existence of trillionaires is antithetical to that.
Wait, why does the Turing test invalidate the mechanistic argument against LLMs? Isn’t it possible the Turing test isn’t sufficient to measure intelligence?
The end of the article mentions it. Some people are not purely rational decision makers, some people are altruists who know others are not purely rational, etc.
> I do wonder how many would detransition if it wasn’t too embarrassing for them
Well I wonder how many would transition in the first place if the culture (and law) allowed for gender fluidity without judgement or violence.
Also: not speaking for all queer people here, but if a person wants to detransition because they changed their mind/feel differently as they age/whatever the fuck reason, that’s fine!
I think it’s fine if your Ring camera is only pointing at your property. If it’s pointing into a public spaces, then yeah I think you are doing something bad and you should be shamed for doing it.
Where in the parent comment do you see them saying they are objectively “right”?
I read it as honestly subjective: “I see morality this way, you see it another way. If you act in a way that my morality deems evil, I will judge you for it regardless of how it fits into your belief system.”
Is your point here that people who do wrong always or usually know they’re doing something wrong? If it is, I disagree. Most things I consider morally abhorrent are justifiable under some morality system. And I think for most humans, it’s easier to believe you’re one of the good guys than one of the bad guys.
As someone who works in these orgs, only a small fraction are about user experience metrics. 90+% are extracting more short term value with unknown second order effects on usability.
I agree, but I think the broader point here is that any automated system is a way to offload accountability. And it will be used for that without a doubt no matter how “good” the officers or human processes are.
So it’s still reasonable to be skeptical of (or outright reject) the use of the technology in systems that can ruin or end people’s lives.
Fair point! I was conflating source-available and open source.
I guess you cannot limit based on user or use case, but you can set rules on attribution and copyleft in OSS, both of which aren’t respected by AI. Still seems different than a no strings attached gift.
“My million+ open source LOC were always intended as a gift to the world”
That’s great for John, but not everyone’s open source projects are meant as a gift to the world for anyone and everyone to use. That he cannot understand that others think differently than him is disappointing.