This is a good take if you know nothing about the history of the US meddling with other countries. For those who do have some knowledge here, this is fucking just stupid and naive.
How much worse could you get from a society where 80% of people are living in extreme poverty and where in a good year inflation is 250%? Maduro was not some great guarantor of stability who kept a divided society together. For instance about half the prisons are run under the so called pranato system which means they are literally run by the inmates. I think it's reasonable to say that almost anyone would be better than him.
Pretty much everyone who wasn't in on the CADIVI scam or the subsidized gasoline racket or selling $0.05 screws to PDVSA for $75 stands to benefit from a new government. Many corrupt dictators understand that stealing a small percentage of a bigger pie is a more stable arrangement that can ultimately be more profitable in the long run but the clan that ran Venezuela was so greedy they wanted to take everything as fast as possible.
The guy was clearly insane. Anyone who stabs themselves to death has very serious mental issues. Did ChatGPT exacerbate that? Maybe. Do I think we should do anything about it because the 1 in 100,000,000 crazy person might have negative effects? Absolutely not. Put your energy into backing mental healthcare/national helathcare rather than blaming tech for someone with profound mental health issues going off the rails.
Edit: Good grief. This isn't even a remotely uncommon opinion. Wanting to outlaw things because some people can't handle their shit is as old as society.
yeah, don't even think to regulate the trillion dollar industry that is aiming to insert itself into literally aspect of our lives; instead, wait for a massive overhaul of our health care system, something that has next to zero meaningful political support (it's a fringe view even among Democrats, that's why Obama couldn't get it done), is fiercely opposed to by the billionaires/companies pushing AI, and that's not even considering opposition from the health insurance industry (who have hundreds of billions in free speech to exercise at congress and the white house.)
It would be interesting to see the whole transcript rather than cherry picked examples. The first inputs would be the most interesting.
> regulation
How would you regulate this tool? I have used ChatGPT as well to brainstorm a story for a text adventure, which was leaned on Steins;Gate: a guy who has paranoia, and becomes convinced that small inconsistencies in his life are evidence of a reality divergence.
I would not like to see these kind of capabilities to be removed. Rather, just don't give access to insane people? But that is impossible too. Got any better ideas to regulate this?
I'm sure the between the money and the talent, they can find a solution? I mean these LLM's are already capable of shutting down anything politically sensitive, borderline grey area, and outright illegal, right? So it's no so farfetched that they can figure out how to talk fewer people into psychosis / homicide / suicide.
I'm not going to pretend I"m smart enough to walk into OpenAI's offices and implement a solution today.. but completely dismissing the idea of regulating them seems insane. I'm sure the industrialists ~100 years ago thought they wouldn't be able to survive without child labor, paying workers in scrip, 100 hour work weeks, locking workers in tinder boxes, etc. but, survive they did despite the safety and labor regulations that were forced on them. OpenAI and co are no different, they'll figure it out and they'll survive. and if they don't, it's not because they had to stop and consider the impact of their product.
A girl that was my friend some years ago was having a psychotic episode once, and I told her that no one is following her, no one is monitoring her phone and she probably went schizo probably because of drug abuse. She told me I'm lying ans from the KGB; she went completely mad. I realize that this is actually dangerous for me and completely cut ties, although I sometimes browse one of her online profiles to see what she posts.
I don't think OpenAI should be liable for insane behavior of insane people.
Neither soda or McDonald’s are advertising themselves as healthy options suitable as general replacements for a balanced diet. Whereas the AI companies have a plainly stated goal of being able to accomplish virtually any task a human could.
And before you say it: there’s a massive difference between the legalese they put in fine print in their user agreements and mutter under their breath in sales presentations versus what is being shouted from the rooftops every single second of every single day by their collective marketing departments.
If someone who has serious mental issues walks into a place of business and a real live employee _consistently_ and _repeatedly_ encourages the mental delusions _to the point this mentally ill person kills themselves and another person_ I bet you'd be singing a different tune.
I think there's a difference between a single individual causing another harm and a product which also provides massive benefits causing harm.
It seems similar to Waymo which has a fairly consistent track record of improved safety over human drivers. If it ever causes a fatality in the future I'm not sure it would be a fair comparison to say we should ban it even though I'd want to be fairly harsh for a single individual causing a fatality.
We should work to improve these products to minimize harm along with investigating to understand how widespread the harm is, but immediately jumping to banning might also be causing more harm than good.
Nope. I live in the Midwest and have had more than a handful of friends die from drugs and alcohol. I don't think the rest of the population should have their freedoms taken away because of it. Bad things happen and blaming a drug/substance/tech for it is lazy.
You are making the exact argument the tobacco companies made when they were called to account for their nonsense which essentially boiled down to “It’s not our fault people choose to smoke”. This was after they spent decades hiding adverse effects and telling people it was _actually good for them.
To be clear, I am not blaming the tech. I am blaming the people designing it who are well aware of the flaws/dangers but are doing little to nothing to mitigate that because it would affect their bottom line.
And I want those people held accountable for their reckless negligence.
You have to deal with directly affecting real estate owners, potentially 100s of thousands of different ones in NYC. Not to mention 100s of years of underground infra and all the different companies that own that stuff without cutting service to anyone. It's insanely difficult and I'm not sure I understand why you think it wouldn't be.
You're missing what I'm saying. I'm poking fun at devs that think AGI will magically solve all our problems - they have no idea just how insanely complicated physical infrastructure is.
I could definitely see it helping in this space though. I was a project manager for a telco for a bit and there's lots of data in different formats and systems that even today's AI would be great at splicing it all together for one coherent picture.
Nah, it's fueled by huge misinformation campaigns. It's going to kill art, put us all out of the job, uses 1.5 million gallons per query, pollutes water, will kill the electric grid, etc. These seem to be the most popular uninformed lines of thinking.
I agree several of the commonly repeated critiques are really poor in quality and can be emotionally driven/simply parroted TikTok nonsense, but at the other end of the spectrum we have AI evangelists who get surprisingly aggressive if you say anything remotely negative about GenAI or suggest maybe we should be having a discussion about the ethical ramifications of these tools. Particularly how they are trained and deployed and who should be guiding that process.
I find it very odd when people proudly proclaim they used, say, Grok to answer a question. Their identity is so tied up in it that if you start talking about the quality of the information they get incredibly defensive. In contrast: I have never felt protective of my Google search results, which is basically the same thing given how most people use these tools currently.
It’s kind of wild how hostile some people get if you attempt to open the discussion up at all.
I live near the Great Lakes. Data center proposals are popping up and people think they are going to drain lake michigan. They think they will consume more power than the entire state consumes right now. Idiot yokels are chasing away what could be an absolute boon for our economy. But they'd rather have papermills and make cardboard boxes.
I don’t know the specifics of your region’s deal but the massive AI center deal Louisiana negotiated with facebook is absolutely awful. All it’s going to do is drive up energy costs for the residents and give very little in return, and that’s under the ideal situation in which it actually pans out like they’re expecting it to.
Ya we seem to live in the the place where the firehose of falsehood is filling the lake of bullshit asymmetry. The problem with this is uninformed lines of thinking eventually lead to policy.
It sounds like effenciencies in manufacturing sectors lead to more costly medical services, and ineffencies in manufacturing sectors lead to costly medical services. Am I understanding correctly?
William J. Baumol the namesake of the Baumol Effect[1]. Generally it is
> the tendency for wages in jobs that have experienced little or no increase in labor productivity to rise in response to rising wages in other jobs that did experience high productivity growth
Specifically, manufacturing sectors have increased productivity and service sectors haven't.
That's not how it works though. Budgets are annual. A 1% savings of cpu cycles doesn't show up anywhere, it's a rounding error. They don't have a guy that pulls the servers and sells them ahead of the projection. You bought them for 5 years and they're staying. 5 years from now, that 1% got eaten up by other shit.
You're wrong about how services that cost 9+ figures to run annually are budgeted. 1% CPU is absolutely massive and well measured and accounted for in these systems.
What you're missing is that for these massive systems there's never enough capacity. You can go look at datacenter buildouts YOY if you'd like. Any and all compute power that can be used is being used.
For individual services what that means is that for something like Google Search there will be dozens of projects in the hopper that aren't being worked on because there's just not enough hardware to supply the feature (for example something may have been tested already at small scale and found to be good SEO ranking wise but compute expensive). So a team that is able to save 1% CPU can directly repurpose that saved capacity and fund another project. There's whole systems in place for formally claiming CPU savings and clawing back those savings to fund new efforts.
I've never in my life (25 years in the business) seen a system that was so utilized things needed to be cut. Every single cluster/DC I've worked with has been at 50-85% utilization tops. I mean, they might hit 100% during a report generation period or something, but the 95% avg I've seen has never exceeded maybe 80%.
You don't buy servers once every 5 years. I've done purchasing every quarter and forecasted a year out. You reduce your services budget for hardware by the amount saved for that year.
5 years is the lifecycle. You're not going to get rid of a 4 year old server because you're using less cycles that you thought you would. You already bought it. You find something else for it to do or you have a little extra redundancy. If I increase the mpg of my semi fleet, that doesn't mean I can sell some of my semis off just because the cost per trip goes down.
