FishFace

While your broad point isn’t wrong, it’s good to separate wealth and income.

Why does this only affect Brazil? Was that a separate “emergency”?

Ok doomer

It’s unlikely humans will die out even in the most extreme climate change scenarios. We’ll just be in a much deteriorated state at the poles.

There is an opportunity (or there would be, if these companies were in sane jurisdictions) to try and apply some standards, because only a handful of companies are capable of hosting these bots.

However, there are limitations because of the inherent nature of what they are. Namely, they are relatively cheap, so you can host a number of conversations with them that it is completely unmanageable to manually monitor, and they are relatively unpredictable, so the best-written safety rails will have problems (both false positives and false negatives).

Put together, that means you can’t have AI chatbots which don’t sometimes both: spout shit they really should not be doing, such as encouraging suicide or reinforcing negative thoughts; and erroneously block people because the system to try and avoid that triggered falsely. And the less of one you try to have, the more of the other.

That implies, to me, that AI chatbots need to be monitored for harm so that those systems can be tuned - or if need be so that the whole idea can be abandoned. But that also means that the benefits of the system need to be analysed, because it’s no good going “ChatGPT is implicated in 100 suicides - it must be turned off” if we have no data on how many suicides it may have helped prevent. As a stochastic process that mimics conversation, there will surely be cases of both.

That seems to be an unresolved lawsuit, not knowledge.

If we are to look at the influence ChatGPT has on suicide we should also be trying to evaluate how many people it allowed to voice their problems in a respectful, anonymous space with some safeguards and how many of those were potentially saved from suicide.

It’s a situation where it’s easy to look at a victim of suicide who talked about it on ChatGPT and say that spurred them on. It’s incredibly hard to look at someone who talked about suicide with ChatGPT, didn’t kill themselves and say whether it helped them or not.

They’d better fucking have data on this because it is horrendously irresponsible to let people talk to bots that imitate real conversations not track whether your bots are encouraging depressed people to kill themselves.

Why do you not think the other links are setting their prices in this way?

An ai model can’t “sabotage attempts to shut it down” if it’s not plugged into mechanisms that can actually do that.

What makes you say this is going into her profit? There’s a lot of competition in coffee shops, so if what you say it’s true there’ll be someone undercutting her.

It’s more likely that besides beans her other costs have gone up, too.

It also doesn’t make sense to maintain absolute profits instead of a percentage margin. Low margin means that you aren’t hedging as much against risk (if your stock is destroyed in a fire you have to pay the cost of the stock, which has increased) and aren’t paying yourself any more in the face of the rising costs YOU are paying every day.

This idea does not adequately address reality.

Presumably the difference is how many people are using one for work.

Anyway, you imply you’re completely fine with 70% of the population having no access to the uncensored internet?

How does the FBI compare to the federal/national police forces of other countries that makes it more susceptible?

Oh, so he doesn’t like it when statements and adverts might influence matters in his country.

Interesting.

It’s about 3% according to Wikipedia, meaning that government internet censorship works on 97% of people in this way. That means the 3% also can’t discuss what they learn with anyone except online.

If that’s your remaining objection then sure.

When I make that comment I was thinking of a single office.

I’m part of a distributed team which already makes this information available to everyone. It means when you go to message someone and it says they’re in the same office as you that you can just go and talk to them.

Right. Everyone. But only a minority of Chinese use vpns, and it’s a fraction of those who use them for anything other than work, from what I’ve found.

What strikes me is that this article would never have been written had the FBI not acknowledged the truth. We’re still reliant on the institutions that are being corrupted to help document the corruption…

Why is carol bitching about what she can see on teams that she can’t see looking around the office already?

Sounds useful? Weird to imply the purpose of this is to expose people not in the office. The people who care about that already know.