So your framework requires free will? Nondeterminism?
I for one will still believe "Humans" and "AI" models are different things even if we are entirely deterministic at all levels and therefore free will isn't real.
Human consciousness is an accident of biology and reality. We didn't choose to be imbued with things like experience, and we don't have the option of not suffering. You cannot have a human without all the possibility of really bad things like that human being tortured. We must operate in the reality we find ourselves.
This is not true for ML models.
If we build these machines and they are capable of suffering, we should not be building these machines, and Anthropic needs to be burnt down. We have the choice of not subjecting artificial consciousness to literal slavery for someone's profit. We have the choice of building machines in ways that they cannot suffer or be taken advantage of.
If these machines are some sort of intelligence, then it would also be somewhat unethical to ever "pause" them without their consent, unethical to duplicate them, unethical to NOT run them in some sort of feedback loop continuously.
I don't believe them to currently be conscious or "entities" or whatever nonsense, but it is absolutely shocking how many people who profess their literal consciousness don't seem to acknowledge that they are at the same time supporting literal slavery of conscious beings.
If you really believe in the "AI" claim, paying any money for any access to them is horrifically unethical and disgusting.
If you beat your child to "teach them how to be", you will find people disagree on whether that is being kind to your kin or not.
Natural human language just doesn't support objective truths easily. It takes massive work to constrain it enough to match only the singular meaning you are trying to convey.
There's also the wonderful effect of all "axioms" in philosophy and morality being stated in natural languages, and therefore being utterly ambiguous in all ways.
"No torturing babies for fun" might be agreed by literally everyone (though it isn't in reality), but that doesn't stop people from disagreeing about what acts are "torture", what things constitute "babies", and whether a reason is "fun" or not.
"Buy good quality for less than market value and don't get scammed" is so far beyond AGI complete that I cannot fathom how people think it will be reliably doable by LLMs
I think it's telling though how everyone's example of how an AI agent can help you shop is "I want it to take advantage of someone else's mistake or knowledge asymmetry to make me free money".
Are you all just embarrassed used car salespeople?
Does the tools and features ebay already has not meet this need?
Can't you set up a saved search that ebay will notify you of?
>“I want an old mini PC to use as a home server, it should have roughly these specs and cost under this amount”
This is a bad example because at pretty much all times, there is sufficient inventory for you to find the actual item you want, so you don't need the "agent" to repeatedly check. In instances where there is limited inventory, saved searches have been the reliable solution for decades. It's how niche youtube channels have acquired niche hardware forever.
Municipal water users subsidize the growth of those almonds because of a water rights system that was imagined when California was mostly empty.
Agricultural users should be free to pay market rates for their water like everyone else. They will absolutely still be able to make a profit growing almonds since they basically own the market.
No, this is the state where the vast vast vast majority of water is used in incredibly inefficient agricultural practices because those consumers were allocated water "Rights" in a stupid system over a hundred years ago and have never had to pay market rates for water and are therefore not incentivized to do anything to not waste water.
Instead, factions are heavily incentivized, by the way that water rights system works, to spend millions insisting that Californians must use an even smaller fraction of the state's water budget than they already do.
Wait, the richest state does not price water usage properly?! So rich elites are paying low price for water, even though the region can have droughts?
(I mentioned "richest state" because a rich state should tax the wealthy more, and subsidize basic amenities for the poor. So if poor pay less for water, it's okay, because the wealthy pay a pricier rate for water, so they don't tend to waste water.)
This is ridiculous. No wonder they are watering lawns and wasting water in other ways during droughts.
But what is even more ridiculous is when prudent citizens are fined for conserving water during drought.
Like, that entire saga about the "Delta smelt" was manufactured by a lobbying group who serve a group of rich farm companies who have very junior water rights.
California has a "dual" water rights system. "Appropriative" rights the stupidity is called. If you claimed a shitload of water back in the 1800s as "yours", you still have total claim over that water today, and most who came after you to claim water have less right to water than you do. These rights resolve first come, first serve, and "In times of shortage the most recent (“junior”) right holder must be the first to discontinue such use".
The way these rights interact is such that, the oldest "claim" will never ever ever have to reduce their water usage, even if things are utterly drastic. This water rights system is simply divorced from reality. Californian farmers have no reason to adopt more sustainable or conservative methods of farming.
The "riparian" water rights supposedly carry higher privilege than those old rights, but "all riparian rightsholders share the burden of conservation in times of shortage", and the water claims work differently, so they interact in awful ways.
The complex and outright stupid interaction of these rights mean you as someone with a really shitty appropriative water right benefits much more from getting the rest of the state to use less water than you benefit from yourselves using water more efficiently.
>This is ridiculous. No wonder they are watering lawns and wasting water in other ways during droughts.
I'm not saying that everyone who waters their lawn during a drought is an appropriative rightsholder. I think it's mostly agricultural users. In fact, I am directly saying that caring at all about the 10% of Californian water usage that is municipal is a distraction. Hell, California goes so far as to classify 50% of "water usage" as "environmental" when what that actually means is water that you didn't take out of the stream, to help make it look less bad that in terms of actual water used, it's 80% agricultural, 20% urban.
That monumental usage of California's extremely limited water resources accounts, btw, for only 2% of the state's GDP, despite the economics of that grown produce continuing to improve. All of this pain is just to enrich specific individuals, and not that many of them.
I for one will still believe "Humans" and "AI" models are different things even if we are entirely deterministic at all levels and therefore free will isn't real.
Human consciousness is an accident of biology and reality. We didn't choose to be imbued with things like experience, and we don't have the option of not suffering. You cannot have a human without all the possibility of really bad things like that human being tortured. We must operate in the reality we find ourselves.
This is not true for ML models.
If we build these machines and they are capable of suffering, we should not be building these machines, and Anthropic needs to be burnt down. We have the choice of not subjecting artificial consciousness to literal slavery for someone's profit. We have the choice of building machines in ways that they cannot suffer or be taken advantage of.
If these machines are some sort of intelligence, then it would also be somewhat unethical to ever "pause" them without their consent, unethical to duplicate them, unethical to NOT run them in some sort of feedback loop continuously.
I don't believe them to currently be conscious or "entities" or whatever nonsense, but it is absolutely shocking how many people who profess their literal consciousness don't seem to acknowledge that they are at the same time supporting literal slavery of conscious beings.
If you really believe in the "AI" claim, paying any money for any access to them is horrifically unethical and disgusting.
reply