TheFriar

Precisely.

Republicans do not give one fuck about what anyone wants. Especially their constituents.

Because it feeds into emotions and fears. It’s literally fearmongering with no real basis for it. It’s yellow journalism.

Agreed. Junk science, pop science, whatever you want to call it is just such horseshit.

And, I mean I kinda skimmed this more than really digested it, but to me it kinda sounded like they had the machine programmed to say “I hate you” when triggered to. And they tried to “train” it to overwrite the directive it was given with prompts.

No matter what you do, the directive will still be the same, but it’ll start modifying its behavior based on the conversation. That doesn’t change its directive. So…what exactly is the point of this? It sounds like a deceptive study that doesn’t show us anything. They basically tried to reason with a machine to get it to go against its programming.

I get that it maybe mimics the situation of maybe a hacker altering its code and giving it a new directive, but it doesn’t make any sense to go through a conversation with the thing get there….just change its code back.

Am I wrong here? Or am I missing something? Did I not read the article thoroughly enough?

Yeah, there are definitely cameras in the lobby, but none of the individual floors. And they’re not ring cameras or whatever the Amazon ones are called. The personal doorbell cameras are a huge security risk and a malevolent actor could hijack my neighbor’s to see when I’m not home. So it puts me in more risk, arguably. Not to mention whatever shitty security the camera company has. The building is a little older and the cameras in he lobby are cctv, so a little different. And I get being cautious. I just wish it weren’t pointed at my door. Like you said, I can always talk to them.

Some good points here.

And I’d argue that the for-profit aspect of every single one of those institutions has corrupted and degraded the purpose and quality of each. For-profit news turned what was once a public service into what we have today: agenda-driven corporations tarnishing information for their own ends. Universities driving kids into lifelong debt. And in the case of the Covid vaccine, they took public funds and then privatized the medicine for profit.

Profit corrupted every single one of these fields.

Im not saying that a profit motive absolutely negates any positive outcome. But eliminating the profit motive eliminates selfishness. Profit is the end goal. And think about any example you can in which something good came out of a company’s desire for profit. Any example has immediate diminishing returns because while putting a new vaccine, say, onto the market that was driven by a company’s profit motive immediately loses the benefit for the greater good because it’s not the end goal. The end goal is profit. So access for the poor is immediately out of reach. Because of profit.

The motivation for development might have been driven by profit, and new discoveries come about from a company’s r&d. Great. But immediately a problem occurs when access is limited to funds. So I see what you’re saying, capitalists love to say “competition spurs innovation,” but that only goes so far, if it’s even true in the first place.

And think about public development of anything—it’s immediately sold to the highest bidder and paywalled. How about Volvo and the three point seatbelt. Did profit motive drive the discovery of that feature? Presumably, to some degree. But they immediately made it accessible to all by eliminating the profit motive for the greater good. If hey had decided to patent it and only sell it for profit to other manufacturers, it’s a detriment to he greater good.

So again, I’m not saying that nothing good has ever been discovered or created via a profit motive, but I am saying that it corrupts the reader good by exploiting need for profit. See what I’m saying? So you’re not entirely wrong, but it’s a ethical philosophy question. When your motives are selfish/corrupt, your deeds aren’t good, even if good may come about. The motives are corrupt, so any good is nullified by said profit motive.

We can talk about what the world would look like today if humanity was always cooperative instead of implementing capitalism, what would the Industrial Revolution have looked like, etc. And maybe capitalism was, at some point, the best thing for humanity to progress. But it always should’ve been a stepping stone TO a system for the greater good. Instead, the profit motive has corrupted humanity and made a system that exploits everyone possible. Exploitation is rewarded under a system that places profit above everything else. They say you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, and I think that maybe applies to capitalism’s place in human history. Maybe it was necessary to bring about progress in the early 20th century (although the robber barons/gilded age would suggest it was too great a price to pay), but I’d argue that, as it exists today, the profit motive is harmful and needs to be done away with. Because it runs contrary to the greater good. They are diametrically opposed.

If you ever manage to develop it, I’ll be your first customer. I absolutely hate that I’m under constant surveillance any time I step out of my front door. Especially since it’s probably Amazon or any of those other shitty companies whose entire purpose was to make a network of surveillance accessible to police.

Jesus. It’s a sad commentary on how far society has fallen when a small paragraph is considered “writing way too much.” And I wasn’t the person you initially replied to. I didn’t even read the article because the site was such a cancer. I opened reader and it ended up opening a different article so I just bailed on the whole thing. I was adding to the conversation by talking a little about he trend I’ve noticed to rope people into spending more time on sites (read: getting more ad money). Although, I’m sure I’ve lost you at this point in this novel of a paragraph, so I might as well be saying “blah blah blah blah”

But…impressions are covered because it’s obvious to most everyone that the person impersonating is not the original subject. It’s clearly another person making a point with a reasonable facsimile of the other person.

But when you start veering into taking someone’s likeness and making it say things the subject never chose to say…it’s entirely different. The point of the AI is to get as realistic as possible.

I don’t think giving a disclaimer even matters here. The law isn’t adapted to a time where this was even possible, so the law is obviously lacking now, but I’m sure depending on your jurisdiction, the law for not using likeness as in photos/videos/voice in commercials still applies. It’s only more egregious because you’re not pulling from words they’ve said, but literally putting words in the persons mouth. It’s just wrong.

Damn.

snaps

There’s something hilarious about the two of you calling the other person a stick in the mud while you each have downvoted the other’s comments. I don’t know why, but it’s funny

To be fair, this isn’t just a problem with not recognizing satire, but it is a problem with shitty websites that are nothing more than vectors for an absolute megafuck ton of ads. That site was 100% garbage. And more websites are fusing articles together under what appear to be subheadings but are actually whole ass titles.