So some people made up something called ai, made millions of people out of jobs, big scams in market, filled internet with rubbish things, killed people with delusional chatbots, killed the planet, and all to make themselves rich.
If I do this, this would have been a crime. Nothing more.
Literally none of those things you wrote are inherently a crime. Granted, maybe that’s the problem, but no - it’s not illegal to get rich, or to use a lot of energy, or to make low quality products.
Literally yes. If you justify harming others out of nowhere by ‘sabotaging your own existence’ then yes.
‘Sabotaging your own existence’ is a magic sentence that can justify everything. Israel can kill children more than any other nation in the world, and justify it by ‘not sabotaging their own existence’
Anyone can do anything with this perspective. This is the exact point gere. Pull yourself back, if you are about to ‘not sabotage your own existence’ by simply killing innocent civilians because you believe a computer algorithm told you in about 15 years they or their children might do something harmful.
Not really. Not unless one is thinking in absolutes, at which point one is by definition an extremist.
The rational dialogue that emerges is the proper size of a military for defensive—but not continuous offensive—purposes. I’d guess, for America, that is half its current size at most. (The wrong answers are zero and $1.4tn.)
Sure, any one can say anything. But I am not referring to that. I am talking about a case where it is objectively true.
But I think that is a question that anyone would rather not consider.
The issue is that if you don't consider that question, and jump into discussion or actions, in general just have an "outrage", then it would be very hard to take you seriously.
Imagine you are stranded in your home with all your loved ones, and you get a call from your "warmonger" president and the matter is urgent; he says "We have received intel regarding a enemy plan to bomb your house in 30 mins. This report is only x% reliable, but we have the exact location of the enemy and we have birds in air that can hit them in 5 mins. This might escalate into a larger conflict, Do you want us to proceed? "
What would your response be? What is the value of `x` at which you will approve of the pre-emptive attack?
What is your percentage to say no lets do not take actions. Because again; with this perspective every single action is legitimate. There is a chance for everything. If there is a weapon that can kill every human on the planet, every country will race to invent it because every country will try to invent it. Every action is valid. Every weapon development is okey, because if you dont, others will. You can kill everyone, because everyone might eventually try to kill you, there is always a chance.
We both know that it is not true. Because by this logic, you wouldn't fire a weapon at someone who is about to stab your wife or child. Because there is a small chance that they will die of a heart attack before they can do it. So it is some value that is < 100%, but apparently that is not good enough for you.
You did not accept my answer and did not answer to mine as well.
On top of that, while you are pulling some hypothetical scenarios, the reality is exactly as I described. Governments, especially us gov, kept invading, bombing and killing people based on some subjective percentages and this is still ongoing.
Although you did not like my ‘prefer to die instead of kill’ idea, you still did not solve ‘you can kill everyone since there is a chance anyone can kill you’ problem. And reality is closer to latter, unfortunately.
>What does objectivity have to do with the value of x?
It does not have anything to do with objectivity. I thought it to be futile to discuss that since, as you implied, predicting future can't be 100% objective, and thus decisions to avert a bad future outcome always need to be based on subjective decisions.
So this is another question where I want to ask you how you would make a subjective call.
Asml was eating the Dutch It sector. They were hiring like crazy. I know shit ton of people left their company and moved the asml in last 3-4 years. Even I guessed this was coming.
And yes, wondering how many of these employees will be hired by Chinese counterparts.
Open source is not only about being able to read the code: the open source definition includes "Free Redistribution" (anyone who has the software can give away copies, and get paid if they want) and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", among other requirements.
These two requirements combined make it impossible to distribute open source software with the provision that it is only free for individuals.
For the record, it happened yo me as well once. When I asked, it said it gave that location randomly. A small town around the world, random choosen and it is my town is very good probability I would say.
I tried to replicate it as well, could not.
İt happened when I asked for weather, maybe someone can replicate it.
I can only laugh at this statement. There are way many events where usa did act like an not trustworthy. Maybe you should start asking questions like “why my allies seeking external alliances, am I doing something wrong”
To add to your point, chess is relatively irrelevant vs other games. And there's a chance it is precisely because it is too simple. After all, human chess players have been beaten two decades ago. Dota 2 game and players were not (as of last try by OpenAI) - certain mechanics had to be removed to compete with the top players.
some of the comments on that thread are surprising. Are people not aware that software can be bundled in such a way as to run on machines not having internet access?
the background is this UI is the MotherDuck UI for their cloud SaaS app. MotherDuck is a VC-backed DuckDB SaaS company, not to be confused with DuckDB Labs or the DuckDB foundation
MotherDuck decided to take their web app UI and make it a locally usable extension via DuckDB. however as noted in that thread, the architecture is a bit odd as the actual page loads once the extension is running from MotherDuck’s servers (hence the online requirement)
I don’t think it’s intentionally malicious or bad design or anything, just how this extension came about (and sounds like they’re fixing it)
disclaimer: I do know and actively work with the MotherDuck folks, I’ve also worked w/ DuckDB Labs in the past
If I do this, this would have been a crime. Nothing more.
reply