It takes time / few iterations to get it right (and it's moving target), but yes, expensive trial, my personal feeling is that they went a bit too high, at the same time who knows, maybe good move – as they're saying RL didn't plateau. It feels like they had something like $100M budget for it?
Even if you believe it needs something more than science, your theory must first do homework to verify it does not violate any scientific principle (or can disprove that scientific principle), and you have exhausted all natural causes before positing your special cause. You still need scientific justification in that case too.
By saying "becomes", I was intending to leave open the possibility that, by somebody's definition, a baby might not be conscious. But they aren't going to stay a baby forever.
I think you should be allowed to write that exact line in your journal. If you rob the bank that can be used as evidence against you, but in no way is it acceptable for private reflections alone to be used to arrest you. Or else every author who's written a novel with 'bad' characters would be arrestable.
In no way is it better now that we have online gambling. The entire industry should be illegal and barred from participation in the traditional banking system.
I keep saying: its worse than that. Companies that actually do not need to ask for consent do - because their compliance departments prefer to play it safe. My current employer genuinely does not share any data with anyone, the only stuff we process is for our own technical purposes, very well within the remit of GDPR. But year after year, a chief data privacy officer after chief data privacy officer, I lose the battle for "lets get rid of the obnoxious cookie consent banner, we dont need it". All big companies are like that.
And of course, cookies are no longer needed for invasive tracking, fingerprinting, and data disaggregation. Been this for years. But hey, bureaucracies never backtrack, so we will have the cookie consent until the thermal death of the universe.
In number 4 of the author's definition of parasite, the parasite kills the host not benefit it.
I guess that analogy would be people stop sharing their thoughts publicly, which is as likely as people stop sharing on social media, very unlikely for many reasons.
No, in the EU, you don't "own" the data about yourself in any meaningful sense. For example, under the GDPR, consent is just one of several potentially available legal bases for processing personal data — in fact, it's the one basis you usually want to avoid as a business if at all possible — which also means that for most uses of your data, you do not have any unqualified right to demand a controller cease processing or remove your personal data.
Maybe you should not have published it for free if you wanted to be paid. CC-NC and similar licenses only apply to derivative works if copyright law applies in the first place. But you could have still paywalled your site if you wanted.
I think that mischaracterizing a business model as evil is an overloaded practice.
Is it evil to introduce terms and conditions that restrict how you expect your users to use your product? No, it's probably more hypocritical than evil; I don't think my parents telling me not to smoke while they struggled with addiction was evil, but it sure didn't model the best behaviour.
Is it evil to lobby government to curtail the freedoms of individuals to protect your business model? Yeah, probably; in most cases I believe that reducing consenting adults freedoms is usually a pretty evil act.
Microsoft is guilty of both, but I prefer to save Evil to describe actions that actively cause harm, either physically, mentally, emotionally, or in terms of harming the freedoms that people enjoy, especially if that choice to cause harm is economically motivated.
I'm not advocating on behalf of Bill Gates or Microsoft, just on clear terminology so that we can focus on actual evil behaviour versus consenting adults entering into a valid contract for mutual benefit.
Not only that they can review flagged content, but they tend to have separate retention policies for flagged content. Anthropic's is this: "We retain inputs and outputs for up to 2 years and trust and safety classification scores for up to 7 years if your chat or session is flagged by our automated trust and safety systems as violating our Usage Policy."
So don't run for office or anything like that. Someone, somewhere will have a contact that will get that.
How do I know that a private LLM system won't have a degradation of quality similar to this or worse? The only thing I can think of for the proposed scenario is some sort of homomorphic encryption system? But not sure.
Pardon me I got my jurisdictions mixed up, it's the FTC that would regulate these matters. I'd believe nothing's been staged, but it's quite apparent to me that these security incidents and findings are being spun for marketing.
I think even better approach is the way Terrence Mckenna goes through all of this in his book exploring the hermetic tradition
And I agree with you on motivated reasoning but that is arguably just how human intelligence works and in this case everybody in their current time was doing the best that they could with the tools that they had. So I don’t mean to diminish former practitioners of what they called science or epistemological reasoning, or natural philosophy.
At the same time as scientists were constantly identifying when new mechanisms that better describe natural phenomenon retire old social formations around them
In my view the main failure of humanity is not adapting social structures at the pace of epistemological change, this is Carl Sagan’s main complaint in the demon haunted world.
There is no one gene for humanness. Never the less, human DNA (the sum of the DNA carried by any one human) is distinctly human, rather than chimp or canine or lizard. That's why the organism becomes a human body, not a chimp or a canine or a lizard.
When it comes to the topic of consciousness, so far I feel science is not the right tool for the job.
In the same way that a computer might store RGB values and be able to manage all the transformations necessary to render graphics, it's all a mathematical representation until it's left the screen.
Science is that mathematical representation of the universe, consciousness is when it's "left the screen" and is experienced.
Those traditions, with their introspection and meditation, are drilling into experience of consciousness.
Or that's my take on the whole thing.
Extremely cheeky to skip out on APA rulemaking requirements