Peanut @ Peanutbjelly @sopuli.xyz

Posts

1

Comments

172

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's faux pas to even defend yourself, or question the framing of a dialogue or call out legitimate direct discrimination. If you think labeling an entire group as the evil enemy is going to make the bad actors or moderates in the group more likely to align with you, you are an idiot. On Reddit I moved to the leftist subreddit /r/onguardforthee when /r/Canada became too right wing and I'd started to see directly bigoted comments more often.

I got banned from the new subreddit for saying "hey maybe calm down with the direct racism and sexism here. We should be better than those we criticize."

If you're defending "the bad ones" you're the enemy.

I've been thoroughly egalitarian and anti-bigotry my entire life. I've also been beaten until my eyes were swollen shut in school by people I didn't know, and punished for "instigating with racist language" that I would never use because the older two kids knew it would get them out of trouble. I was just waiting to get into the library to read a book.

I've been accused countless times of racism working in retail because of things I had no control over. (Shout out to my old manager Om for calling out their bullshit)

I've been told in no uncertain terms by another manager that I would not have been hired if they were there at the start because they "do not hire men."

I've been told countless times I should not even be allowed to speak or have an opinion due to the body I was born into. That any action I take is directly unfair or harmful regardless of my intent or reasoning. I don't define myself or others by their bodies. Nobody chose their body.

Etc.

Would you think defending this sort of behavior really helps to reduce bigotry?

It's really just making me hate all of humanity. Everyone is terrible and being reasonable is an unforgivable sin on every side.

No nuance is allowed. If you don't agree with incredibly broad generalizations, you are evil. American history and culture is globally applicable and enforced.

I just want people to stop judging and mistreating others for things they have no control over. I guess I deserve to be hated or mistreated for that alone.

thank you for your response. i appreciate your thoughts, but i still don't fully agree. sorry for not being succinct in my reply. there is a TLDR.

1. like i said, i don't think we'll get AGI or superintelligence without greater mechanistic interpretability and alignment work. more computational power and RLHF aren't going to get us all the way there, and the systems we build long before then will help us greatly in this respect. an example would be the use of GPT4 to interpret GPT2 neurons. i don't think they could be described as a black box anyway, assuming you mean GPT LLMs specifically. the issue is understanding some of the higher-dimensional functioning and results, which we can still build a heuristic understanding for. i think a complex AGI would only use this type of linguistic generation for a small part of the overall process. we need a parallel for human abilities like multiple trains of thought and the ability to do real-time multimodal world mapping. once we get the interconnected models, the greater system will have far more interpretable functioning than the results of the different models on their own. i do not currently see a functional threat in interpretability.
2. i mean, nothing supremely worse than we can do without. i still get more spam calls from actual people, and wide-open online discourse has already had some pretty bad problems without AI. just look at 4chan, i'd attribute trump's successful election to their sociopathic absurdism. self-verified local groups are still fine. also, go look on youtube for what yannic kilcher did to them alone a year or so ago. i think the biggest thing to worry about is online political dialogue and advertising, which are already extremely problematic and hopeless without severe changes at the top. people won't care about what fake people on facebook are saying when they are rioting for other reasons already. maybe this can help people learn better logic and critical thought. there should be a primary class in school by now to do statistical analysis and logic in social/economic environments.
3. why? why would it do this? is this assuming parallels to human emotional responses and evolution-developed systems of hierarchy and want? what are the systems that could even possibly lead to this that aren't extremely unintelligent? i don't even think something based on human neurology like a machine learning version of multi-modal engram-styled memory mechanics would lead to this synthetically. also, i don't see the LLM style waluigi effect as representative of this scenario.
4. again, i don't believe in a magically malevolent A.I. despite all of our control during development. i think the environmental threat is much more real and immediate. however, A.I. might help save us.
5. i mean, op's issue already existed before A.I., regardless of whether you think it's the greater threat. otherwise, again, you are assuming malevolent superintelligence, which i don't believe could accidentally exist in any capacity unless you think we're getting there through nothing but increased computational power and RLHF.

TLDR: i do not believe an idiotic super-intelligence could destroy the world, and i do not believe a super intelligence would destroy the world without some very specific and intentional emotionally intentioned emulations. generally, i believe anything that capable would have the analogical comprehension to understand the intention of our requests, and would not have any logical reason to act against it. the bigger concern isn't the A.I., but who controls it, and how to best use it to save our world.

They always focus on real estate value. Who of that under 45 demographic lowest earners can afford anything but survival and renting? Why is there absolutely no mention of the failure of antitrust? Brand conglomerates jacking up priced for pure profit because what are people going to do, use local goods from shops that are gouged for their basic operation costs? I work at a small local place, and I'm pretty sure the owners are as tired and depressed as the staff right now. Working harder than ever, and losing more money than we make.

All we can ethically do is shout and cry and be noticed, but the last few decades show how much that has stopped the trend.

Something has to change or riots will be inevitable. Automation isn't going to go backwards, and it's absurd the working class hasn't seen any improvement in their lives by this point.

1. Why would we be wiped out if they were properly instructed to be symbiotic to our species? This implies absolutele failure at mechanistic interpretability and alignment at every stage. I don't think we'll succeed in creating the existential viable intelligence without crossing that hurdle.
2. Most current problems already happen without a.i. and the machines will get better, we will not. From spam to vehicles, a.i. will be the solution, not the problem. I do think we should prioritize on dealing with the current issues, but I don't think they are unscalable by any means.
3. Why? And why do you think intelligence of that level still couldn't handle the concept of context? Either it's capable of analogical thinking, or it isn't an existential threat to begin with. RLHF doesn't get us super intelligence.
4. Again this assumes we've completely failed development, in which case environmental collapse will kill us anyway.
5. Hey a real problem. Consolidation of power is already an issue without A.I. It is extremely important we figure out how to control our own political and corporate leaders. A.I. is just another tool for them to fuck us, but A.I. isn't the actual problem here.

How about an art director using Disney/Warner money to direct a bunch of interns? The artists are being used as a tool for someone else to make their art without the effort that work should require. Does it belong more to the interns that worked on each piece? Or the director who had the vision and direction? while you might not care for simple prompt direction, or want to take credit for anything you've made with these tools, even easy work made with a powerful tool can be interpreted for its own merit, and could give smaller creators an effective "team" to compete with people who have endless resources.

You can also spend time and effort in conjunction with these tools to create something specific to what you had envisioned. Does this lack value due to the medium?

I think art is a complex concept with high subjectivity, but this type of selectivity happens every time a new tool or medium is introduced. Judge each work as you will, but don't go around claiming "this thing isn't art" because of reasons that lose meaning or truth in any other medium or context.

As a long time artist in traditional and digital mediums, I get frustrated by this attitude. Is there a reason images made with this tool are considered less "art" than Pollock or Newman? Are photographers not artists, because their medium is too easy? I admit midjourney is bottom of the barrel for AI art tools, but they obviously had an intent and goal while creating these images. While I prefer stable diffusion, as I like precise control over every aspect of my creating an image, it gets the exact same response.

When people are creating detailed interactive worlds by dictating to AI art tools, will you refute the medium at every level of complexity, effort, and intention? It's as ridiculous as when people were saying 3D art wasn't "art." Or anything made in Photoshop. Judge it how you wish as an individual piece, but don't be so dismissive of new tools. They are a part of our life and creativity now.

Big issue here is religion is based very deeply in things that are directly opposed to any reasonable understanding of how our world actually works. LGBT is based on personal feelings and desires, and there is little excuse for denying people what they say about themselves. I can say that all evidence suggests fairies do not exist, and we shouldn't be including them in school curriculum, no matter how big of a belief group exists for them.

But you cannot argue LGBT people do not exist. I'm a boy. I like other boys. It is inexcusable that half of the world would have me arrested or murdered for the fact, and allowing that same hated to permeate our society would be an injustice.

It's astonishing that this is so difficult for most of society. Half the world will kill our arrest you for just loving someone they don't agree with

I'm saying the same thing I've been saying for years. We need a more simple replacement for LGBT if we want to be more inclusive. If there's anything that fails to gain public support, it's things that change or become more complicated.

Because 2SLGBTQIAP+ is a mouthful.

Not likely. Lots of those people in this area. Same type that spent the last few years yelling at random service employees for following COVID procedures. There's been a couple recent defaced rainbow crosswalks as well. Remaining positive has been very difficult this past few years. Happy pride month.

There should be more info on how all gambling is basically just a scam. What's worse is gambling in sports video games.

How about setting up kids with gambling mechanics combined with an abusive market that uses proprietary development tools so that the developed skillsets by their child labour force are not usable in different environments?

Can anyone name the multi billion dollar child focused corporation that I'm referencing?

Spoilers, it's Roblox.

Although the entire mobile market makes me believe we are doomed and the government will do absolutely nothing to control heavy investment in and use of manipulative practices. General citizens have no chance when their casual life moments are invisibly combative with multi billion dollar groups that do everything they can to get an advantage over peoples basic subconscious habits and lifestyles.

I see more people defending these practices than protesting them. All the while people are freaking out about the "evil" of AI art tools.

Gambling is just manipulation at this point. generally manipulating and taking advantage of people now is just "good business."

autumn garden guardian?

my old pair would do this every minute for a full quarter of the battery life. you could turn it off, but you had to turn a bunch of other stuff off as well. why is this even a feature on headphones? maybe say it once at the 25% mark or when first turned on around that range. making content unlistenable by repeating it every 60 seconds is not an idea anyone should ever have had.

not sure what you're saying here. are you claiming it can't do any sort of reasoning or open-ended problem solving?

i think we're fairly confident now that they can do structured reasoning to some degree. it is not flawless in that it might not give you real or accurate information every time, but we are also figuring out the contexts behind that. as for spreading misinformation, anything intentional prompted to be incorrect is irrelevant to gauging intelligence. unintentional results don't necessarily mean it's unintelligent either.

there's a really good document on this aspect as well.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/D7PumeYTDPfBTp3i7/the-waluigi-effect-mega-post

there are a lot of ethical and technical aspects of LLMs that are severely underdeveloped, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. i don't think any of that would suggest that it's reasonable to disregard the absurd pace of development this past decade, and last few years especially. good thing we have a sudden surge of attention towards developing these things.