IMO the notion that such one-sided agreements are not made under duress needs to die in a fire. I wish there were a viable grassroots political movement to remove the corporate boot from our neck; until that point, fuck these terms of servitude and every abuse they enable.
This officer and every other officer who flippantly uses such a system in this way should be relegated to a life of third-shift security work guarding some random warehouse.
IMO, they aren't qualified for even that. This is the sort of thing that proves them to be untrustworthy and thus should only work in low trust positions where they can't ruin someone's lives or business.
Yep. Perhaps humanity would be better off if we instituted and enforced the notion of "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." It's worth thinking about; just because we can build AI systems doesn't mean we should.
The problem with technology is that the people who have it conquer and kill all the people who don't, essentially ensuring a destructive race to the bottom. You would need a mutual international alliance of nations who not only renounce the technology but also agree to invade anyone who attempts to develop it. Our closest precedent is nuclear weapons, but rather than renouncing them, the US's position is that "only we should have them" and that other people acquiring the same tech they have are valid targets for invasion, and they will obviously apply that notion to any new technology that can be weaponised as well.
Google which countries have nuclear weapons. Hint: It’s not just the US, it’s also its allies and frenemies who’ve not been invaded. It’s only nutball countries like Iran that get invaded when on the cusp of acquiring it and for good reason.
I would remind you that the fictional society that did this was also described as a feudal monarchy in which a tiny class of nobles exploits the economic output of trillions of people reduced to serfs by controlling all means of interstellar trade. Oh, and they also have legal slavery.
During the Butlerian Jihad, the people involved in it didn't know that ten thousand years of slavery would be what they are choosing, so we don't know how bad it actually was.
The way Jihad presented in the oblique references in books, anyway, it sounds a great deal like a fanatical fundamentalist religious movement to me. Those are not known for their fine reasoning.
I’ve gotta say ultimately I’m not convinced Herb put more thought into it beyond its purpose justifying human labour in his universe despite the massively advanced technology. There’s a similar shortcut in the Warhammer backstory.
Herbert did genuinely believe that people overly relying on machines is problematic insofar as it "trains the mind" to think like a machine, and in the process loses the indeterminacy that he believed to be an inherent and valuable trait of human thinking that machines cannot replicate.
(Coincidentally, this is also the main threat in the original books, just manifesting in a different form, with prescient individuals "locking in" the rest of humanity.)
Honest question, is an oppressed human society better than no human society at all? Isn’t there at least a hope for humans to free themselves from human oppressors?
I'll remind you that a fictional product that provided longevity and woo woo powers of prescience and was only available on one planet in the entire universe was the key context that enabled such a centralized society. Dropping thinking machines and their masters like a bad habit was only part of the cause, as it eliminated one means of safe interstellar travel in that reality. I can take ideas from this plot without bringing in the whole ridiculous mess if I like, just like I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, thank you very much.
Of course they don't, but if you choose to use a work of fiction as an illustration, it comes as a coherent package (assuming the author did a good job at worldbuilding) - you can't just take the bits you like and ignore the bits you don't and still have something coherent.
I mean, we have a Millenium problem that is most likely solved. Either by OpenAI on its own, OpenAI stealing another's work and finishing it or a researcher using AI to iterate more rapidly than a human alone could.
> We should be happy that they’re stealing people’s work?
No. We should credit that work is being done that otherwise may not be. I'm not defending OpenAI. I'm defending AI in general, something both OpenAI and Buckmaster (and his co-author) used.
No, I did not. If someone says either X or Y happened, they didn't say X happened.
My exact statement: "Either by OpenAI on its own, OpenAI stealing another's work and finishing it or a researcher using AI to iterate more rapidly than a human alone could" [1]. (Either X, Y [a and b] or Z. An Oxford comma could have helped.)
So if Y happened (they stole it), why should we be happy about that? Why should we give them credit in the situation where they stole it? Why is that good for society?
Yes, let's lie and call something stealing, then pontificate about morality.
At worst what OpenAI did was inconsiderate, but not referencing prior work is a minor academic sin. This is especially the case when AI is not playing the vanity game that seems to so inflame some mathematicians.
Sure, we can show anything if we're allowed to make stuff up from personal outrage. Why should anyone else consider your personal opinion on this to have any weight?
And you seem to not realize that your unhinged argument impeaches whatever conclusion you're trying to justify. Good points don't require this sort of slimy misrepresentation.
The technology is fine, great even. It’s the rabid greed of venture capital and sociopathic CEOs that try to integrate themselves into every aspect of our lives for profit, that’s the problem.
“For 19.99 a month you too can be a world class mathematician!” Meanwhile they are extinct.
Then you weren't paying attention. Watch the videos of the mob inside the building. If they hadn't been led away from the senate chambers by capitol police [1], we'd be having a very different conversation right now. Did you think the American History X extras leading the pack were just there to see the sights? Come on, man.
What conversation do you think we would be having? Would we be debating the laws that January 6 attendees are passing in the chambers? What alternate outcome do you think was likely, or even possible?
Why hold back? Clearly we should install live-feed cameras in every home so we can solve most domestic crimes; surely a little police abuse shouldn't prevent such a profound reduction of crime. It's not like any of these people have rights or anything like that. /s
Oh how adorable, a collection of fascist AI-slopware. "Protect the border from the coming horde." is particularly nauseating. What's the Coming Soon game going to be? "Build a concentration camp for political dissidents!"? "Command your own death squad!"?
What else are you going to use? Apple Maps? They're going to do the same thing. OpenStreetMaps? They don't have navigation. Waze? Got bought up by Google.
I use mapbox for turn-by-turn for hours a day every day, and it's based on OSM.
Bonus: when something is fucky, I can actually generally get it fixed, unlike google which continues to report an 80kph speed limit in various residential streets and school zones in my city.
reply