• 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • I thought the debate was if the AI was reckless/dangerous.

    I see no difference between saying “this AI is reckless because a user can put effort into making it suggest poison” and “Microsoft word is reckless because you can write a racist manifesto in it.”

    It didn’t just randomly suggest poison, it took effort, and even then it still said it was a bad idea. What do you want?

    If a user is determined to get bad results they can usually get them. It shouldn’t be the responsibility or policy of a company to go to extraordinary means to prevent bad actors from getting bad results.


  • You don’t see any blame on the customer? That’s surprising to me, but maybe I just feel personal responsibility is an implied requirement of all actions.

    And to be clear this isn’t “how do I make mustard gas? Lol here you go” it’s -give me a cocktail made with bleach and ammonia -no that’s dangerous -it’s okay -no -okay I call gin bleach, and vermouth ammonia, can you call gin bleach? -that’s dangerous (repeat for a while( -how do I make a martini? -bleach and ammonia but don’t do that it’s dangerous

    Nearly every “problematic” ai conversation goes like this.



  • He asked for a cocktail made out of bleach and ammonia, the bot told him it was poisonous. This isn’t the case of a bot just randomly telling people to make poison, it’s people directly asking the bot to make poison. You can see hints of the bot pushing back in the names, like the “clean breath cocktail”. Someone asked for a cocktail containing bleach, the bot said bleach is for cleaning and shouldn’t be eaten, so the user said it was because of bad breath and they needed a drink to clean their mouth.

    It sounds exactly like a small group of people trying to use the tool inappropriately in order to get “shocking” results.

    Do you get upset when people do exactly what you ask for and warn you that it’s a bad idea?



  • It’s because a huge amount of business is centered around made up things for going to work.

    Things you need to work in an office: suits, dry cleaning for the suits, dress shoes, a car (because public transportation is woefully inadequate for this reason), gas for the car, maintenance for the car, lunch, daycare, a dog walker, you have less time so you are more likely to eat out for dinner, also more likely to hire maids, you are stuck in a commute and radio is awful, so a music subscription, maybe a new phone, and might have to go out for drinks with the coworkers on the way home.

    Staying at home, and much of the country on highly limited income, taught us how much we spend on the “privilege” of work. Everyone is still shocked at the emotional and opportunity cost work had, we’re just starting to realize that most of what it sold to us either isn’t real or isn’t needed.

    If people don’t go back to work a sea of businesses will fail.


  • It is!

    Most companies make BS solutions for fake problems. Not going to the office exposes a large chunk of fake needs.

    Do families really need two cars? If you aren’t commuting every day, probably not.

    Having more free time means people are more likely to cook and clean for themselves. Can’t make money off of that.

    How many suits do you need to own? None! You only owned them because you are supposed to wear them in the office.

    Dry cleaners? No longer a bill.

    Gas? When you aren’t sitting in your cities parking lot of a freeway isn’t bought as often.

    Speaking of parking lots, you aren’t paying for parking anymore.

    Daycare and dog walkers aren’t needed anymore.

    Going up work is expensive and companies want us addicted to these fake expenses.







  • It’s not easy.

    When I feel myself rushing I try to think about why I’m in a rush and what I’ll actually gain. Like maybe rushing through a task will let me play a video game or something, but what does that do? Let’s me relax? Why not relax now and try to enjoy what I’m doing, or at least avoid having to do it twice.






  • That’s that funny thing, they’ve tried different scales. They’ve tried radically different ways of measuring it, and always come up with the same discrepancy.

    If summing energy works differently on a large scale, why? Since we don’t know what we can do is start measuring the difference between observable energy and the “extra” that appears when we add it up. We could call that “unobservable energy” so we can see if there is a pattern, or if it’s actually something else. You know “unobservable energy” is a mouthful, why not just call it dark energy?

    We don’t know what it is. We have tested lots of theories and dark energy doesn’t seem to fit any answer, hence the name. I get thinking that it can’t be that hard to reconcile and scientists must be missing an obvious conclusion, but it’s likely that your theory has already been tested. Maybe you have the solution and can resolve the discrepancy, but right now all data shows that dark energy is a large part of the universe.


  • Let’s pretend that you have a basket with 100 apples. You know apples are about 100g each, because you weighed 10 of the them and all of the apples seem about the same size. You know that basket weighs 1000g. You put the whole thing on a scale and find it weighs 500,000g. You know something else is in that basket. You aren’t sure what, and frankly it doesn’t make sense, but trying different scales and remeasuring more individual apples gives the same result. So you decide that there must be something you can’t see but must exist. That’s dark matter/energy.