Because the AI is a cyclical prediction machine that is more akin to a simple mechanism in nature like cell reproduction than a conscious dog. What has happened here is more like the AI company put bacteria in a petri dish and only put the lid on without pushing it down and is reporting the bacteria as a super bacteria because it contaminated all the samples in the fridge.
An interesting observation I've seen is that the AI companies reporting these incidents have largely been backed by venture capital where the self funded companies developing models have largely not had these "problems".
Because there exist so many schools of programming and so many deep philosophical considerations what makes software good vs not good.
Basically, software created by programmers who are more on the artisan side often deeply encodes what they value in life and what they don't.
So, finding a "good" programmer for a company means finding someone who is skilled in programming, and who has very compatible deep opinions about life and everything.
Also, many exceptional programmers are not good, obedient workers in a "software factory"; this is another consideration that you have to keep in mind.
I did prompt it. Let's Encrypt still doesn't issue .onion certificates :) Onion Services already provide end-to-end encryption and service authentication anyway. Tor currently lists DigiCert and HARICA for publicly trusted onion certs. I actually use a HARICA certificate on the onion mirror of this very blog, so I promise HTTPS on onions has crossed my mind before.
If the point of the agent is to perform "reasoning" for operators, being able to understand the "train of thought" is part of the output. Removing access to this (efficient for the model or not) is removing value for the customer. AI shrinkflation.
I'm using it to code under free use on Cursor for the remainder of the month and finding I have to look over its shoulder to make sure it is following my spec and my prompt. So like... what you would expect it to do.
With banking I may as well do it myself if I'm going to use Grok.
Other prompts. Usually working 3 tickets at a time in parallel. My company's contracts make #tokenmaxximg a thing still. When this ends, I'll probably be researching another ticket to reduce context and token cost on my next prompt. More like making sausage than code, but that's the world we've always been living in as far as the C-suite is concerned.
I think the problem here is that we have a bias for those who agree with us that outweighs our patience in searching for oppositional opinions that are well founded. From a liberal bubble it is quite hard to find conservative viewpoints that aren't based on unobserved apriori belief or strawman arguments. It feels like being a heavyweight surrounded by lightweights and it makes me feel like I need a better sparring partner, I just can't find one...
> I think the problem here is that we have a bias for those who agree with us that outweighs our patience in searching for oppositional opinions that are well founded.
This is a very agreeable statement, but I'd add that politics is not about finding the Kantian truth of what's best for everyone (inside the country? globally? also immigrants? lazy and ugly natives?).
It's about balancing interests. Of course, the idea of free market democracy was/is that both goals eventually converge.
I'm thinking you're meaning like "politics is about trying to understand/impact what could plausibly occur", whereas the "truth" you mention is inherantly unconcerned with that, but I think there's also value in finding and debating it.
What's implementation without a target? Is politics concerned with improving conditions for people, or is it just balancing enough interests that we don't start killing eachother?
It's shades of both I think, and there's fierce disagreement about both the global optimum and how to or if it's worth getting there
I thought about balancing the interests of those who have power, by all means short of war.
And of course this begs the question who has power and who should have power.
The will to improve living conditions comes from the interests of those who have political power, in my view. You can say because of democracy if you like. Or, more cynically, dependence on labor and consumption (Fordism), or, more idealistically, ethical values in powerful people themselves, and all of that are nuances and not absolutes I guess.
But I wouldn't say that my definition was precise.
I just wanted to point out that it is not a given for politics to have the goal of optimizing utilitarian interests, maximizing wellbeing or long-term goals such as protecting people.
In other words, participants in politics do not only discuss how things should be achieved, but also what should be achieved.
If that makes sense: this is what I meant by "balancing powers". I'm not sure right now how to map it to the two poles you describe.
IDK about the 2400 year old argument (apparently against paper), but if you need to use AI to organize your book find something else to do. If you don't have the patience or motivation to learn and do this, why should a reader have the patience to read the book. Most people who use AI in their creative process don't understand the creative process. Having something trained to do what came before to help you do something new is like putting guardrails on yourself to prevent you from doing something new. It feels right when you're doing it, but that's why they can charge for it. Like Coka-Cola -- It tastes great while you're drinking it so you buy it. After a while of this it puts your pancreas under distress leads to a myriad of health problems (diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure, cancer) that could have been prevented by just not drinking Coke.
An interesting observation I've seen is that the AI companies reporting these incidents have largely been backed by venture capital where the self funded companies developing models have largely not had these "problems".
reply