I kinda can't believe you cut off the quote there, because that whole sentence is wild. I'm just going to expand the scope a little bit...
I was laughing at her and another person going at it while im high on an edible in the courthouse.
By "going at it", what are we saying here?
I'm just trying to make this image in my head make sense, two people are going at it in a courthouse, this guy is high on edibles while watching it, and laughing uncontrollably.
The current examples of AI could never be described as a general intelligence let alone Superintelligence. These LLMs are definitely just a typing monkey (that was eloquently put).
They are literally generating text word by word with a next-word-prediction methodology.
With some tweaking they can be made to produce mostly coherent code and apparently also equations that balance. This does not make these algorithms geniuses. A calculator can also balance an equation, so that alone is not impressive.
The techniques LLM designers use to leverage statistical models in order to generate coherent sentences are actually rather impressive. It is legitimately quite a feat to make LLMs work as well as they do. But that does not mean that these outputs are anything like "thinking", they're just outputs. Data goes in, the machine churns, does some mystery math, and different data comes out.
In some positions, not showing up with no heads up, no explanation, can cost the company a shitload of money. Filmmaking for example, you might have a location booked to shoot at for the day, some important person doesn't show up, you can't shoot your scenes. And actors aren't the only people who could potentially hold up a shoot.
We just need a blanket ban on generative AI. The societal costs are just too high, we can't bear it. We can continue on our path like this for years and dig ourselves into a deeper hole before admitting it, or we could just admit it now and save ourselves the pain.
Like if having gpl code in free bsd forced all these companies to be more open with their software, and now they can be more closed with it, isn't that bad?
I mean, it's possible, if you really fuck it up in some way, but not from regular use.
Replacing the compressor once is still going to be cheaper than replacing a fridge every 5 years.
In my basement I have a freezer from the 60s. It needs to be defrosted every year or two, but aside from that it's never needed servicing, not once. I'm telling you, the older it is, the longer it will last.
I hate to say it, but this is somewhat common for security measures. Anything that has low level control over a system is inherently an additional vector for attack, it increases your "attack surface".
Now if designed properly it can certainly be helpful and reduce your vulnerability, but bugs in the system could also leave a user more vulnerable than they were without the additional "protections".
I don't believe you can be compelled to provide a password. That does after all (at the very least) constitute speech. And freedom of speech is also freedom of non-speech, they can't make you say something.
They will however try to make you do that... In many situations authorities are allowed to lie to you. So that's sucks. They can tell you that you're required to unlock your phone, you just have to know that your not actually.
Also they can't make you say anything, but they can make you do things, like for instance "put your finger here" or "look into this camera", which is why biometric unlock is unsafe around cops.
Honestly, fridges are a total crapshoot these days. If you have a 15+ year old fridge, never replace it, get it repaired, the quality level in new fridges is terrible.
I kinda can't believe you cut off the quote there, because that whole sentence is wild. I'm just going to expand the scope a little bit...
By "going at it", what are we saying here?
I'm just trying to make this image in my head make sense, two people are going at it in a courthouse, this guy is high on edibles while watching it, and laughing uncontrollably.