Your lack of creativity is not a reason to believe that a super AI is harmless or less destructive than a nuclear weapon. Damage need not be limited to destruction. Introducing doubt is sufficient. Right now you have faith that digital Financial transactions can be trusted. You have faith that computer encryption can be trusted. You have faith that digital certificates will protect you. If an AI can introduce doubt into any one of those systems, that will be sufficient to bring about the destruction of those systems. Imagine a world in which you can no longer use a credit card or Apple pay. Where no digital cash transaction can be trusted or validated. What effects do you think that would have on commerce? How quickly do you think we can return to some trustable means of commerce? Do you think it will happen before your groceries run out in your apartment? Before your grocery store can settle its debts? Before your Amazon ec2 instance runs out of credits?

What happens when a husband decides to risk the mortgage payment on a sports bet and loses? Now the wife and kids are evicted.

Or maybe he lives alone and is now homeless. But now we have a man living out of his car, or worse, homeless and begging on the corner.

The problem with allowing people to do whatever they want is that risks are often socialized.

> or worse, homeless and begging on the corner.

Nah, worse is they get some of your hard-earned money. Or a part of it.

Do you account for every penny your taxes go to?

Why should I pay for someone else's bus route?

How does this happen with an online app? I understand how it happens when you place a bet with the local bookie.

Voters can be held accountable; he demonstrated exactly what he was the first time in office and then people voted for him again.

My suspicion is that HF specifically didn't pursue charges to set the precedent that use of AI absolves accountability.

A computer under control of an AI cannot be held liable. The lack of a law suit also leaves no ground for regulation.

The current admiration also wants these tools - warts and all - so nothing can be allowed to stall the progress of these war machines.

I still remember when Interstate exits in the US were numbered sequentially. It seems like only 20 years ago they switched to mile markers for exit numbers.

Many still have "old exit XX" alongside the current exit number.

Start up a seti at home style of open source LLM training! Assuming there is an ability to merge the sub models trained on each user's home PC into a larger model...

That's not something that is known how to do in a reliable fashion, right? It sounds quite like the problem where transformers are unable to be updated/taught over time.

I can't wait for The Truman Show to be real. This is the best future possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43fqtIPGo2A

In my place of employment, anything I create while on company time or using company resources is the property of my employer.

So while it might be nice to say I won't share, boss-man can certainly make it so I must share.

Ownership of the IP, as it were, is certainly true, but usually with these tools, most of the battle is documenting it, training people, answering questions, etc., and if you aren't motivated to do that it's very hard to make it happen.

Boss-man actually has a very difficult time turning legal theoretic right into actual deliverables.

They can't force you to share what they don't know about or don't understand.

Exactly. I get why multiple people are replying that my company owns what I make on their time, but it's honestly funny as hell to me that people think most management at any company cares about or understands some CLI tool enough that they would know about it in the first place or actually go through the effort to force one to hand it over. That's gotta be really rare. Being concerned about that is like being afraid drive through a red light at an empty intersection when you're the only car on the road at 3am.

It's not about that, it's about the incentive...

I don't need to be able to write proofs about my maths using logic and determinism. If the answer comes out in a way that I like then it has to be correct!

This is vapid condescension.

The comment you replied to made no statements about math or proofs. They made a statement about working in systems of non determinism effectively. Your statement seems to imply that this is dumb, as if working in a world of full determinism is an option.

Thank you for "vapid condescension".

I've wanted a term for this for decades!

when you do have the option of determinism, but intentionally eschew it in favour of a strictly inferior nondeterministic tool, then yes, it is kinda dumb.

What deterministic option are you referring to here? Humans certainly are not deterministic in how they interpret instructions and write code. If I asked you to implement a feature and a month later asked you to implement the exact same feature, you likely wouldn’t do it the same way again. Two different people certainly wouldn’t.

When you cling to determinism and call a clearly useful and powerful tool “strictly inferior” I would say this misses the point.

strictly inferior != bad. It's relative. One tool will still give the output i intended long after I'm dead and decomposed, with the other might not at the very next time i run it.