I think what I meant to say was, they're as simple to jailbreak as they were three years ago.
Different methods, still simple. Working with researchers that are able to get very explicit things out of them. Again, it feels much worse than before, given the capability of these models.
There's basically guardrails encoded into the fine-tuned layers that you can essentially weave through (prompting). These 'guardrails' are where they work hard for benevolent alignment, yet where it falls short (but enables exceptional capability alignment). Again, nothing really different than it was three years ago.
> Steve Jobs was a middle-class guy trying to find his place in the world; the kind to travel India to to meet Neem Karoli Baba, shaved head, barefoot, wearing kurtas
I'm gonna be real: I've seen guys with shaved heads and kurtas at Apple Park. Admittedly they did have shoes but Indian people aren't "exotic", they're just people.
Essentially all Apple engineers use macOS ~exclusively (at least in the SWE org). That these bugs persist is in spite of that fact.
Frankly there's just a lot going on, and between all the kinds of bugs that have higher priority -- crashers, panics, memory regressions (your app gets Jetsam'd), power bugs (your phone runs out of battery mid-day), perf regressions (could violate EU regulations against planned obsolescence), security bugs (people can lose their money, journalists can get killed) -- bugs like this often fall by the wayside for quite some time until they're fixed.
While I don't agree with your conclusion, I like the phrase -- "raped society" does quite well capture the feeling of violation I think many feel at having their own publications turned into machines meant to impoverish them.
I always find it striking how certain portions of 'the discourse' expects people to react news events like this. There's this idea that we are obliged to 'disavow' violence committed against people like Sam Altman. Certainly, we here all likely agree that it's bad, terrible, and counterproductive. But why does he deserve so much care, when so many others do not? In the very same city, gang violence kills dozens of people a year, including through drive-by shootings and in their own homes. Need we 'disavow' those? Where is the outcry for more surveillance, more laws, when people on the streets are robbed, when homeless people are murdered? When people park nice cars in bad parts of Oakland, people chide "you should have known better -- of course it was going to get stolen."
The ruling class imagines themselves special; they, by virtue of their wealth and status, are exempt from the rules. They can demean you as Luddites, spend trillions to automate your job, threaten your family with homelessness and you with starvation and death, all while smiling gleefully and tittering about p-doom -- and they expect people to stand idly by while it happens. Yes, this violence is wrong. But it would also be wrong to hold these billionaires by a different standard than we hold one another -- when there is violence, that violence should be considered like the violence which already plagues San Francisco, and should be addressed through regular mechanisms, and given the regular consideration that police give all such crimes. Every camera that goes up, every crack squad of FBI agents dispatched, is proof that we and they are not equal under the law, not in any way that really matters.
but we haven't even proven that AI will destroy vast amounts of jobs. Some, sure, junior software engineers are in trouble. but other then that, do we really have any quantified evidence as to how many jobs have been displaced by AI? i've been looking for numbers on this but it all seems murky and wishy washy. i'm open to be convinced, if anyone's got numbers.
also, if the worst case scenario does happen and most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money.
Do you expect people to wait by while billionaires pour trillions of dollars into replacing them? Evidence takes years to mount; present events are moving far faster than that. Your argument is the exact same as that of COVID denialists in 2019 -- that we don't know how bad it'll be yet, that there's so little evidence, that we shouldn't jump to hasty action before getting results in. Empiricism can only go so far.
If I knew someone was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars building a big laser pointed at my house, I would not wait for "quantified evidence" of its effect to take some sort of action. The only real debate is what kind of action.
> also, if the worst case scenario does happen and most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money.
If you have so little attachment to your money, why hold on to it at all? Do not be upset that other people are operating on a slightly larger time horizon than you are, and are interested in their livelihood not just today, but three or five years from now.
>> Do you expect people to wait by while billionaires pour trillions of dollars into replacing them?
Well, I tried to warn my family and friends and they're looking at me like I'm crazy. So yes, I think most people will just treat all their layoffs like it's just a regular recession. Until, at least half your friends are laid off, most people won't be any more alarmed than if in a recession.
>> If you have so little attachment to your money, why hold on to it at all?
You'll need whatever you have left. The barter economy won't take the place of the primary economy, rather it will supplement it with transactions between members who have no currency. but, there will always be some things that you want to get from the primary economy, if you can.
examples include: Great depression, third world countries like ghana, south africa, etc (and countries that have collapsed like syria), also the hazda tribe and other native tribes untouched by technology, as well as other similar to human mammalian species that share our planet like monkeys, apes, chenobos, all are able to survive without money albeit with more favorable climate/physiology.
I might not really understand this response - are you trying to justify a dystopia by describing how it can be literally survived? I.e. imminent physical death is your bar for where revolting is "allowed"? I'm reeling trying to understand how this can be what you're doing.
Because the parent accused you of acquiescence and you just replied with a list of examples to follow, I don't think you understood what they meant.
In the worst-case world, there is still more than enough wealth and work done to provide the bare minimum quality of life to everyone. The automation of most occupations would lower the bar of creating the simplest food supplies and homes even more. But, in that horrific world, the elite class would say "lol no" and use that wealth to live in paradise, away from everyone else, while the rest are left with almost nothing. The parent is saying that your immediate reaction is depressing, because instead of anger or even disapproval, your instinct is to put your head down and reason that you and all the future generations should just live like a monkey, forever.
I saw this all the time when ICE was doing their business in Minneapolis. That was only a few months ago and it doesn't take too long to dig and find some truly odious posts.
Well for one, nobody was killed here. But second of all, sure -- because Hacker News are not the class of people involved in drive-by gang shootings; to most of us they are essentially abstractions, barely more real than the trolley problem. If you went around asking people who knew a guy that was shot, you'd eventually find someone who said he had it coming -- he got involved with the wrong guys, he shot at one of them first, he did something he shouldn't have (a common thread: the livelihood of the people involved). This is obviously atrocious: nobody should go around shooting people on the streets. But we can recognize that both are playing with fire, and understand the violence in that context -- such that the solution to gang violence is not, "moralize at the gang members until they stop shooting eachother", but rather "improve socio-economic conditions until they stop wanting to". So yes, there are elements of HN's population that will cheer these events on. But this should not be surprising -- the ruling class is playing with fire.
The same thing happened with Kirk. Everyone standing up to "mourn" a neo-nazi, fake tears, rolling with the grift. Rolling with the white supremacist grindbox.
Exactly -- that means that any analysis based on the current (as of 1926) 'reserves' or 'production capacity' for rubber/fertilizer/coal/wood would have been invalidated as soon as we switched to using oil instead. Imagine if instead of harvesting helium directly we find an economic way to split nitrogen (somehow, who knows). At that point, what you'd have to have forecasted would be the 'reserves' of nitrogen, which are functionally infinite.
That still amounts to magical thinking. And the point of the post that you’re replying to is that we didn’t actually make things better. We actually accelerated our exploitation of other resources to make up for the shortage of the others which had serious other negative side effects.
Since we’re dealing in magical hypotheticals, what if this new economical way to split nitrogen generated so much pollution that it poisoned natural water supplies? Also the “economic way” is misleading. If prices shoot up enough, then crazy things become economical like missions to other planets to retrieve it. But that’s an insane cost that has to be borne out by all humanity. Historically that worked because you increased how many people were on earth so it spread the cost out. However, it’s pretty clear the Earth is at carrying capacity for humans with our current technology which is why the population growth has slowed drastically. So increasing costs threaten to become a weight the next generation can’t lift resulting in societal collapse.
> Imagine if instead of harvesting helium directly we find an economic way to split nitrogen (somehow, who knows).
This is nonsense, from the physics point of view.
The reason why rubber/fertilizer were replaced by oil/gas products is that
oil/gas has the energy needed for the (relatively simple) chemical transformations needed to obtain rubber/fertilizer from the feedstocks.
Splitting nitrogen into helium is a nuclear reaction that requires copious amounts of energy.
At least using fusion or collecting helium from Moon/Jupiter are physically sane, if economically insane.
It was a city half in / half out of agriculture though.
No evidence of cultivation, but extensive evidence of cereal / grain processing - surrounded as it was by abundant wild grasses and steppes.
The argument made by some is that processing grain (winnowing, grinding with stone, ovens, etc) induces a fixed "city" life via the not especially portable capital investment.
Certainly an avenue of thought worth investing time in.
This comment is rather uninformed. Greco-Buddhist art was real, yes, but emerged far away from the geologic 'West' -- in Bactria, at the edge of India, where Hellenic garrisons had established a kingdom after the collapse of Alexander the Great's empire. We have very little evidence of feedback from there to the west, and so little potential for Buddhism to influence the development of later Greek society or e.g. Rome.
The most we have are faint gestures at how some Buddhists could indeed have been alive in the same place, at the same time, as early Christians. But Christ himself, as far as we know, never referenced Buddha or any Buddhist works, never interacted with a practitioner of the faith (or even referred to one), and all the same applies to the Apostles.
E.g. nobody would suggest that Buddhism was particularly influenced by Greek religious thinking, but we know with certainty that Greeks were present in the region due to their service in the Persian empire of the time.
The last line of GP's comment is key here: "Who do I sue if Palantir decides I am an illegal?"
This shouldn't make as much of a difference as it does, but due to how our legal system works, it's much harder to get meaningful legal satisfaction when an algorithm (or other inhuman distributed system) commits a crime against a person than when a person does so.
I think you're confused about the mechanism involved. It's hard to get satisfaction due to e.g. qualified immunity. The fact they use technology is largely irrelevant. You couldn't sue the NSA for spying on you before AI either.
reply