I don't think the vast majority of people here get this. If Facebook's anti-adblock measure is effective enough to be worthy of replicating, it'll just get replicated.
The "tax" just transfers shares of the for-profit companies into a State organization.
So CEOs like Elon Musk will keep using them as CSAM generators, while the State is incentivized to keep them profitable... Even though we have no reason to assume they'll ever turn a profit.
AI should not be treated as "too big inevitable to fail" and yet here Bernie is.
The president nominates THE SENATE CONFIRMS(because you glossed over that part) this is literally the standard practice.
Re-read my previous comment. I mentioned the Republican-controlled Senate explicitly. Did you need it to be in bold too or what?
The Independent Commission would consist of seven members nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate
Considering AI is unprofitable, and considering the rampancy of corruption in the Trump administration, this is an extremely naive position to hold at best, and an actively harmful one at worst.
Bernie Sanders sadly didn't get the message and wants the American government to own 50% of the stock of major AI companies instead, which means the government would have an even bigger reason to invest more in them.
Why does Binance get to enjoy all the legal benefits of being a corporation, and all the benefits of trading cryptocurrency, and none of the downsides of either?
I'm not sure if it's clickbait or just the most recognizable thing in their catalog. I've heard of A Court of Thorns and Roses, never heard of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell at all, but Harry Potter is a household name.
On the other hand, the money is being taken from a company that helped bomb Iranian schoolchildren , and has a CEO who desperately wants to do it some more.
The recipient doesn't really deserve the payout here, but the people who do will never be rich enough to get the lawyers to receive it. You've got to have (tons of) money to make money...
Edit : It turns out the publisher will be giving the proceeds of the lawsuit to the authors, which number in the thousands.
Don't get me wrong, I know the judicial system is pretty flawed, but their job is to rule on behalf of people's wellbeing, at least in the United States. The reason the school-to-prison pipeline even exists is due to pressure from for-profits similar to Facebook.
I do agree that it would be better for a judge to turn to an expert opinion in this kind of case, and to avoid lobbyist and corporate groups, specifically.
(And FWIW after I made my first comment did I realize that the author of this article is Mike Masnick, who is an advocate for social networks because he is employed by one.)
Do you really think that your insults are less insulting if you follow them up with condescension? If you refuse to answer my questions, just say so, instead of being a douchebag.
I answered you twice, "in good faith" as you like to say, and it's clear that's something you're not here in.
AI isn't perfect. But Christ, anybody who points to the
problems at AI had better be looking in the mirror and pointing at
themselves at the same time.
Now I’m interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
Now I'm interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I disagree with Yudkowsky in pretty much every way possible, and don't know how you could conclude I agree with him if you saw anything else I posted in this thread. He's like you, he believes AI is inevitable and wants it to be good too.
When I said “the experts” I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies
Interesting how you conflate "expert" with "employee" when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these "experts" never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is... Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I dunno, I think judges are more likely to be "child safety experts" than private companies with a history of doing the worst thing possible to all their users (absolutely including children).
U2 becomes iTunes' most downloaded artist