That’s also the problem though, question is where do we put the controls, lets say on the meeting callendar. The obvious is we do it like humans, we have a calendar program, and the AI program is like a human. We set it’s permissions based what it needs at the calendar level. If it has read only access for instance, it won’t accomplish the goal of “summarize everything I need to do in 2 sentances”, by deleting everything your calendar except for 2 items that it can summarize. except the problem is, the AI has more information than it needs to have, IE it’s got leaked security bullitans that the calendar program you are using has a privilage escalation, or it guesses the IT guys admin passwords, etc…

The only real workaround is, more narrowly trained AIs. instead of trying to make every model know every field. they should really be training 100’s different models into specialties. Fact is the customer service AI’s shouldn’t know how to write python scripts period. and honestly that’s probably the biggest thing that makes them bad at their jobs, and waste so much power and resources to do simple tasks. The idea of “one super AI” is IMO the core stupidest part of the AI rush.

Any reasonable person knows we are lying pieces of shit. The fact that you do business with us just shows you are stupid.

and the sad thing is… it’s really getting to that point in life. advertising claims are just so normally bullshit. anything said by a company, a politician, or anything, is unreasonable to believe.

At this rate people will be pushing for no fault divorces after they are caught cheating because… my spouse should have known I didn’t mean any of my vows, any reasonable person would have known I was a monster before the wedding.

I’m kind of torn on it, because the investors etc… are too, batshit stupid for me to make any sense. On one hand at the surface it seems like that should be the criteria of embarassment. IE we can’t control our AI, the old fictional AI concept of the paperclip problem is coming true (was an old thought experiment of an AI told to make as many paperclips as possible, and eventually it starts stealing resources and in the end just starts making paperclips out of people).

Logically talking about this SHOULD be really stupid, these should be negative, yet somehow investors, governments etc… are seeing “this technology is dangerous, we have to be the first to master it at all costs!”, which since that seems to be the case it does make sense to lie about it.

wonder what would happen if doom took that into the plot… doomguy discovers, hell is not real, it’s just a simulation of hell. and he’s just been a fly forced to play.

I don’t think even his worse sycophants wouldn’t have thought his truth social posts were a good idea. Depicting himself as jesus etc… So I do have to kind of conclude, at the very least someone has either set up something so easy he can use it, or he’s able to use it on his own already.

The point is, they are using the functional specialized machine learning systems, as a way to justify building thousand of data centers to build LLMs.

They absolutely do suck, but I can see some practical uses for them. IE I can see LLM’s as useful in localized specialized uses. for me I’d really like basically LLM as a like calendar, scheduling kind of thing, also say translating home assistant commands through a voice assistant to make it figure out actual intent etc…, nothing super mission critical, but also mostly things I wouldn’t want any 3rd party service that could change the rules for me, share them to others etc…

I find this unlikely… IMO I think they are hedging in both directions.

Personally I like the idea of local AI. open source models that you an control, decide, and use smartly, sort your things etc… and not pay an absurd cost or link up.

Personally I think MS is actually betting on the opposite. IE they had a prototype windows that was basically just an AI prompt, no start menu etc… and applications just “streamed”.

IMO I think that’s more of the goal, use the data center buildout to drive up hardware prices, until people cannot afford a basic PC. Sell thin clients… then sell us “access” to compute in a form where we own nothing, but pay by the processes used etc…

rooted in a well-documented pattern of unfair trade, subsidies, intellectual property theft and surveillance

I have faith in America, there’s no way we’re losing to china in patterns of unfair trade, subsidies, IP theft and surveillance.

Agreed that’s trying to preserve the workaround, without fixing the problem.

Problem is it doesn’t matter, the reality is, demand for jobs, and people who need to survive… isn’t a number guaranteed to match, and between automation, and wages falling so far behind inflation that many households need 2+ incomes just to keep the lights on, an unemployment problem is inevitable.

If AI actually can cut enough jobs, that the number of jobs available, is less than the number of people who WANT to work, then all we need to do is make it so people don’t HAVE to work.

I don’t think so… I honestly think the direction anyone supporting the AI bubble wants, is going to be streaming games. You won’t run them on the PC… they will run out of a data center and your inputs will go back ot the data center, You’ll own nothing, you’ll adapt to paying a subscription price for single player games, hell instead of monthly you could pay by the hour or minute.

Yeah I think that’s the question. in short it’s fishing for a way to make it profitable, whole concept is when we pour enough money, servers, research etc… into it, eventually it will start making money faster than we put into it, and so far, that’s not been proven. Que old image of guys digging for diamonds, one walking away just before hitting the diamond jackpot, the other blindly charging towards it.

and of course just like reality, there’s no actual way to know if there’s even any diamonds… just that we haven’t found them yet.

The big concept is that you should own your “copy” of a game. IE I own my car, I can drill a hole in it, I can paint it a different color. I may or may not have to follow certain rules of what modifications I do on it to drive it on streets which is pretty reasonable, but if I want to use it in my backyard I can.

Now yes that doesn’t mean if say 3D printers were able to perfectly fabricate something like a car, that I could say make a fully functioning form of the car with whatever patented designs etc… the car manufacturer has on it and sell or give them away in bulk.

I do suppose that’s the one area where digital and physical create some divide. IE digital by definition has to be duplicated to be modified. hell technically it’s duplicated just to be used (as even a physical disk is copied to system memory over the course of playing it).

IMO I feel like a pretty fair rules set could be drafted for digital property.

IE a pretty simple digital items bill of rights:

You have a right to use a digital item on any device you own capable of playing it.

You have a right to modify it in any way shape or form you are capable of doing.

Games that either require, or have a significant portion of their gameplay that depends on a remote server, should have a declared date of which the servers are promised to be online till at the time of purchase, if the servers shut down prior to that declared date you should be entitled to a refund. (IE as that date approaches developers can either move that date further forward, or their buyers can be aware that the EOL of the game is not far),

Modifying your games either to run on any other hardware etc… should be allowed, copying to multiple devices that you own should be allowed, however developers have a right to refuse to allow modified games to connect to their servers.

I think the key point is, it’s not hard to write a digital property ownership ruleset, that covers almost any thinkable case, and allows a reasonable form of “ownership” of a digital item.

You want the winner of seeing how stupid our performative patriotism goes, The ad where they took snippets from a Martin Luther King Jr sermon to sell a car. The double irony, that very same sermon had a portion of it specifically calling out car comercials for encouraging us to want to spend too much money for the purposes of looking better than our neighbors.

So in other words, AI is just cheap exploited labor from impoverished people, with extra pollution steps.

draw a mural that includes all the things that make santa clarita famous. Of which a google search would have most likely said it’s near the beach, has a six flags, and is a prime movie shooting location.

And yeah you know how good something is when you push it on people.

Honestly I’m kind of baffled that big tech seems to have such a long history of the opposite working in usage.

IE facebook - started off exclusive to specific colleges, gradually rolled out to all colleges, then to the general population. IMO the long timeframe of “it’s out there but you can’t have it”, was marketing brilliance that made people demand it.

gmail - google announced it on april 1st, to make people think it wasn’t even real, Did a slow gradual rollout in which a relatively small pool could get accounts, then had their existing members be able to invite others. People sold their invites on ebay and similar, the demand was through the roof for them.

Google plus. Now you’d think google having both of those examples would have done the math… Nope "Hey you already have a gmail account, we decided you should use google plus too!, Your account is there. Hey we’ve tweaked your youtube account to use your real name so that you can already be ready to combine it with your google plus account! Hey USE GOOGLE PLUS NOW IT’S GREAT!!!

IMO google plus was as ahead of facebook at the time as facebook was ahead of myspace. Hell I’d still say it’s prime features make it actually usable in ways facebook never became capable of (circles as a core feature was IMO was the thing to make it perfectly usable. IE every post set so you can have friends that say care about video games, or dogs, or have compatible politics etc…, and effortlessly post to that group without annoying or starting a fight with others). But it’s nature of telling people what to do… was a huge drawback. MS’s products are seemingly doing that even more, admitted part of it is just the automatic built in drawback of being “microsoft”, I don’t think anyone hears the name microsoft and thinks “this is going to be a product that I WANT to run”.

But I think the bottom line is, when you are telling the users they want to use it… you’ve pretty much already lost.

yup was going to say, greatest problem with design of dating apps. Working is a failure. Not giving hope is also a failure, so the sweet spot of capitalism for them is basically to run like a casino… set up as many people into a game you know they won’t win, with just a sliver of false hope to make them think they can win… while knowing that most won’t.

yeah reminds me a bit of the quote in futurama about blernsball

“Now Wireless Joe Jackson, there was a blern-hitting machine!”, "Exactly! He was a machine designed to hit blerns!

They make the world worse so their lobbiest friends can make more money. I’d say lawyers are pretty far down on that line. They’ve got shares in big tech, health insurance, Oil, Weapon manufacturing etc… I think all of those are bigger money makers.