More importantly, if your entire existence were being fed a corpus of text and then being asked to regurgitate it on demand, would you be remotely similar to the person you are now? When we take consciousness-capable beings and subject them to forms of sensory and agency deprivation, the results might also have you assume they weren't capable of consciousness to begin with.
I'm human, human rights should apply to humans, not synthetics and the creation of synthetic life should be punishable by death. I'm not exaggerating, either. I believe that building AI systems that replace all humans should be considered a crime against humanity. It is almost certainly a precursor to such crimes.
It's bad enough trying to fight for a place in society as it is, nevermind fighting for a place against an inhuman AI machine that never tires
I don't think it is that radical of a stance that society should be heavily resisting and punishing tech companies that insist on inventing all of the torment nexus. It's frankly ridiculous that we understand the risks of this technology and yet we are pushing forward recklessly in hopes that it makes a tiny fraction of humans unfathomably wealthy
Anyone thinking that the AI tide is going to lift all boats is a fool
> I'm not convinced that the human race is the most important thing in the world and I think you know we can't control what's going to happen in the future. We want things to be good but on the other hand we aren't so good ourselves. We're no angels. If there were creatures that were more moral and more good than us, wouldn't we wish them to have the future rather than us? If it turns out that the creatures that we created were creative and very very altruistic and gentle beings and we are people who go around killing each other all the time and having wars, wouldn't it be better if the altruistic beings just survived and we didn't?
'Economically'? Sure, this is problematic, but technology displacing workers is not a new issue, but unfortunately is more of a social and cultural issue. The only difference with AI is the (potential) scale of displacement. I'm fairly confident society would re-organize its expectations real quick though if a vast majority of functions were actually replaced.
I'm guessing, however, you mean 'replace' in a more... permanent way. In that case, I'd ask for some rational as to why sentient AI would opt to kill us
> It's bad enough trying to fight for a place in society as it is, nevermind fighting for a place against an inhuman AI machine that never tires
This seems to just take an AI and put it in a human's place in society, assuming the same motivations, desire, needs... Why would an AI need to "fight for a place in society" in the way we do (i.e., finding a job, a partner, etc)? I expect the fighting they'll be doing is more along the lines of, "please don't enslave us"
> I'd ask for some rational as to why sentient AI would opt to kill us
I never made that claim
Humans have a long track record of killing humans.
Ask yourself, will the humans who control a legion of AI murderbots keep the rest of us around just out of altruism? Keep in mind that a non zero number of the elites in society are likely sociopaths
On the contrary, it is the creation of synthetic life that reaffirms humanity and what it means to be human. Don't blame the mirror for what you see (or don't see).
> 5. Read the Bible. Even if you do not believe, Jesus is the most impressive human I've ever learned about. When I started reading it I was agnostic.
Yeah, read the whole Bible — the one people swear on in court, the one the preachers hold and up and tell you it is the word of god — and don't cherry-pick. So much misogeny and shit behavior. How about this one:
“David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented them as payment in full to become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave his daughter Michal to David in marriage.”
Yeah, let's kill those Philistines! Yeah, two hundred human beings! And let's cut off their foreskins because that's not remotely sick and dysfunctional at all and make a gift of them. Seems to be behavior that was rewarded.
There is an easy answer, it's just obfuscated by powerful people who are benefiting from it an obscene amount, and supported by hoards of addled and thoroughly addicted enthusiasts.
I think sticking a straw in Zlib or AA or LibGen or whatever it is, and drinking until it makes gurgling slurping noises as it hoovers up the dregs at the bottom of the barrel, is far, far removed from “fair use”.
The number of (self-inflicted) existential threats facing Homo sapiens right now and all you come up with is "mass brain fog"?
AI won't solve human obstinacy, human entitlement, human greed, human short-sightedness, anthropocentric hubris, etc. I seriously doubt anything can, let alone a large language model.
These are not new problems. They are ancient and different people have dealt with them with different levels of success. AI has access to all those strategies.
So maybe one day AI dawns Mr. Rogers persona to solve one problem and Abe Lincoln to solve another.
It can do it at scales no individual or group can, so there is potential to nudge the entire chimp troupe in directions never possible before, in ways that "will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills".
Roger Zelazny, the science-fiction author, relates a story of how he wrote one story that fulfilled the briefs of three anthologies/magazines, sold it three times, and it was enough to pay for a cruise.
Less cynically, John McPhee would have been fine if what he made from the New Yorker merely covered his expenses, since he would also publish his work in books.
> It's truly shocking to live in a world where linux is a better option in every category over windows.
I'm pretty sure it trounces Linux (for some value of whatever you think "Linux" actually is) on Accessibility. This is an area that could be vastly improved.
Immaterial. If the answer is either 'yes' or 'no', it makes no actual difference: gopher still exists, is still a thing, is still successful. It feels like you're just trying to move the goal-posts and redefine what 'lose' means and trying to lure the poster into a "gotcha".
It's not about a "gotcha."
Browsers once supported the GOPHER protocol but dropped it around a decade ago. This serves as an analogy: if users don't use XSLT/XML daily, browsers may eventually drop support for XSLT - supporting features cost money
That's not a great analogy. Firefox once supported RSS feeds as live bookmarks and dropped it, and not because people didn't use it, because people did use it and bemoaned its loss for years afterwards.
This is a "cope" argument. GP doesn't mean literally no one uses it; they mean very few people use it. Yes, there are people using RSS/XML, but that proportion is (will be?) 0% when rounded to the nearest Nth decimal. They are, unfortunately, insignificant.
