Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, speaks at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)
deleted
Worldcoin, founded by US tech entrepreneur Sam Altman, offers free crypto tokens to people who agree to have their eyeballs scanned.
What a perfect sentence to sum up 2023 with.
deleted by creator
The whole thing is creepy. The name, the orb, scanning people’s eyes with it, specifically targeting poor Kenyan people (the “unbanked”) like a literal sci-fi villain.
deleted by creator
We hand over our DNA to ancestry companies for some obscene vanity reason and then pay them for the privilege of keeping it
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That’s why they just removed the military limitations in their terms of service I guess…
I also want to sell my shit for every purpose but take zero responsibility for consequences.
Considering what we’ve decided to call AI can’t actually make decisions, that’s a no-brainer.
AI term means humans are no brainers
Shouldn’t, but there’s absolutely nothing stopping it, and lazy tech companies absolutely will. I mean we live in a world where Boeing built a plane that couldn’t fly straight so they tried to fix it with software. The tech will be abused so long as people are greedy.
So long as people are rewarded for being greedy. Greedy and awful people will always exist, but the issue is in allowing them to control how things are run.
More than just that, they’re shielded from repercussions. The execs involved with ignoring all the safety concerns should be in jail right now for manslaughter. They knew better and gambled with other people’s lives.
They fixed it with software and then charged extra for the software safety feature. It wasn’t until the planes started falling out of the sky that they decided they would gracefully offer it for free.
Has anyone checked on the sister?
OpenAI went from interesting to horrifying so quickly, I just can’t look.
deleted by creator
People still like Steve Jobs.
Ugh. There’s time yet.
OpenAI went from an interesting and insightful company to a horrible and a weird one in a very little time.
People only thought it was the former before they actually learned anything about them. They were always this way.
Remember when they were saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release because people might use it to create fake news or articles about topics people commonly Google?
Hah, good times.
deleted by creator
Yup, my job sent us to an AI/ML training program from a top cloud computing provider, and there were a few hospital execs there too.
They were absolutely giddy about being able to use it to deny unprofitable medical care. It was disgusting.
I’m tired of dopey white men making the world so much worse.
Agreed, but also one doomsday-prepping capitalist shouldn’t be making AI decisions. If only there was some kind of board that would provide safeguards that ensured AI was developed for the benefit of humanity rather than profit…
I am sure Zergerberg is also claiming that they are not making any life-or-death decisions. Lets see you in a couple years when the military gets involved with your shit. Oh wait they already did but I guess they will just use AI to improve soldiers’ canteen experience.
is exactly this AI will do in a near future (not dystopia)
So just like shitty biased algorithms shouldn’t be making life changing decisions on folks’ employability, loan approvals, which areas get more/tougher policing, etc. I like stating obvious things, too. A robot pulling the trigger isn’t the only “life-or-death” choice that will be (is!) automated.
AI shouldn’t make any decisions
But it should drive cars? Operate strike drones? Manage infrastructure like power grids and the water supply? Forecast tsunamis?
Too little too late, Sam. 
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes on everything but drone strikes.
A computer would be better than humans in those scenarios. Especially driving cars, which humans are absolutely awful at.
So if it looks like it’s going to crash, should it automatically turn off and go “Lol good luck” to the driver now suddenly in charge of the life-and-death situation?
I’m not sure why you think that’s how they would work.
Well it’s simple, who do you think should make the life or death decision?
The computer, of course.
A properly designed autonomous vehicle would be polling data from hundreds of sensors hundreds/thousands of times per second. A human’s reaction speed is 0.2 seconds, which is a hell of a long time in a crash scenario.
It has a way better chance of a ‘life’ outcome than a human who’s either unaware of the potential crash, or is in fight or flight mode and making (likely wrong) reactions based on instinct.
Again, humans are absolutely terrible at operating giant hunks of metal that go fast. If every car on the road was autonomous, then crashes would be extremely rare.
Are there any pedestrians in your perfectly flowing grid?
Again, a computer can react faster than a human can, which means the car can detect a human and start reacting before a human even notices the pedestrian.
Have you seen a Tesla drive itself? Never mind ethical dilemmas, they can barely navigate the downtown without hitting pedestrians
Teslas aren’t self driving cars.
According to their own website, they are
Well, yes. Elon Musk is a liar. Teslas are by no means fully autonomous vehicles.
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly. Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric. This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, etc. Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an “ad hoc rescue” of a refuted generalization attempt.
