stevedidwhat_infosec @ stevedidwhat_infosec @infosec.pub

Posts

0

Comments

741

Joined

2 yr. ago

34 felonies?

Good one. There will be riots in the fucking streets lmao

LOCK HIM UP

And now he’s been charged with 30+ felonies.

#LockHimUp

Good steps, hope they would do the same for the any other company or government, the US included.

We should know about these abuse cases and study them if we’re ever to get a leash and collar around AI before disaster can occur.

https://infosec.pub/comment/9572046

I specifically mention this point and you make zero effort to correct or modify what you’re saying so I’m left to believe that it is at least partially aligned with what you’re saying.

Feel free to take the easy way out and argue pedantics - our conversation was pretty short so if you actually looked through the convo, I suspect you ignored this point or are purposefully playing on this point to push yourself out of the waters a la pedantic argument.

Think this conversation is spent now. Thanks.

That wasn’t the topic of discussion. You implied that a majority of people don’t research their views without anything other than anecdotal evidence

You tried to pivot to this other topic, I did not follow it.

I can agree with “at least some people do not properly vet and research their views” but I cannot subscribe to “most”

Make sense?

I agree with your final paragraph. He isn’t a perfect candidate.

But I don’t think there will ever be a perfect candidate and when they’re running against a literal fascist dictator, I know who I will vote for. I’ve said this before but a primarily 2-party system is dangerously naïve. Simplifying the insanely complex reality that is the US into 2 options is stupid. Not to mention how much it alienates minorities (of all types not just race, religion, sex)

How are we to represent down to the minority level via a popular-vote. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Couldn’t have said it better myself - this tool, just like every “new” technology is built off the back of prior tools and science, and is multifaceted/dual-edged sword. You can’t just view things in one light or another, you have to look at them from multiple angles, understand the wounds they inflict, and how to manage them.

Perhaps to reiterate that he’s bringing value to the US for the upcoming election?

Perhaps to cover all the bases, for those that don’t look at fact/evidence (meaning not necessarily a majority of people not looking at fact)

I mean the possibilities are endless, i feel like you’re taking a pretty narrow view to this subject

You’re absolutely right, I’m similarly in a high demand sector, (wonder if you can guess where, from my username) so my options are much more open.

I guess the conclusion I’m coming to is, maybe this fictional hack/tactic does work - just don’t spend too much time there if you can help it. Minimize how much you’re buying into these companies and don’t give them anything more than what they’re paying you to do.

My circumstances aren’t going to be the same as others, so all I can do is listen to their experiences and try to learn about other realities. Probably too deep in the comment thread now but definitely open to hearing others experiences in not-so-in-demand sectors.

Maybe that’s part of the problem - being in a field that is out of favor/demand? How do you provide value when that value isn’t needed at the moment?

Yes. Because not everything that appears intuitive, is fact. This is how disinformation is spread. It is a vulnerability in the human psychology.

Do you have any evidence or data to support this conclusion, or are you participating in the behavior?

Are you implying that the majority of people don’t look at facts and statistics?

Came here to look for this comment - bad science communication is the reigning supreme it would seem these days

Mmm… well it does matter from the context that actual violence is down. When we’re talking about violent crimes.

It doesn’t matter when talking about this other problem, that the media is essentially a constitutionally protected capitalism and greed factory.

To some extent, it’s about creating your own value.

I do agree that sometimes, we have to hack it to make it. We have to forge our own paths. Sometimes that means pivoting around jobs, getting your foot in the door, networking, etc. it means taking a lower paying salary now, and pushing your way into higher raises a la alternate job offers, now that you have experience.

But it does not mean supporting those that are stomping on others. It does not mean supporting the oppressor or the upper class for the sake of temporary security because you can bet your ass these same companies will put the AI into your working environment and fire just as much as it hires. All the while, you get stomped out anyway.

I’d watch the fuck out of this, and it’s an important topic to explore. Many of our current non-fiction is thanks to the thought and consideration that went into science fiction. You’ve got some talent here! Hope you’re still enjoying using it!

You’re comparing apples to oranges here. The circumstances have changed since 2020 and to ignore 4 years of hearings, charges, additional threats (much less vague now) and libertarian distain for trump is significantly different from what it was when he ran in 2016, and when he had that momentum in 2020 (Covid year, don’t forget)

Donald Trump is going to bite the curb this election and I’ll bet you a bunch of people still vote for RFK.

I understand and mostly agree with what you’re saying, but only under the notion you’re supposing.

That the majority of companies do this. That’s an assumption. We need data to accurately define whether or not it’s a wide spread problem.

I’m also highly confused but your first few sentences. You mince words by saying “for most employment domains” but then also say not most places but the largest companies

If the highest paying jobs are unavailable, and they are a small amount of other jobs which pay less (but not necessarily bad wages), there are still a majority of mediocre places and even underpaying places that exist.

I do not see value in encouraging the largest, best paying companiesjobs to continue to use these bad faith and misunderstood practices. You don’t encourage behavior you don’t want to see. You take mediocre salaries, and you hustle your way up into valued roles, ask for a fair wage, and if they say no, THEN you go to the large paying companies, and come back with the offer they made to you (perhaps with this fictional AI work around) and try again.

You should be paid fairly if you are truly valued. But sometimes you have to hack your way into that pay.

If you show these companies that, hey this AI thing works pretty good, do you think they’ll be happy at where it is or do you think they’ll continue to buy into “better” AIs more and more and make the problem more widespread?

You don’t fight fire with fire. You smother that shit or put it out with a firehose.

I’m a big fan of UBI