I, ChatGPT
-
The dog ate my homeworkThe AI bungled my motion
A Lawyer's Filing "Is Replete with Citations to Non-Existent Cases" -- Thanks, ChatGPT?
The lawyer's colleague, who drafted the filing, says he relied on ChatGPT to draft the filing and provide the text of the cases, and neglected to check them.
-
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
The dog ate my homeworkThe AI bungled my motion
A Lawyer's Filing "Is Replete with Citations to Non-Existent Cases" -- Thanks, ChatGPT?
The lawyer's colleague, who drafted the filing, says he relied on ChatGPT to draft the filing and provide the text of the cases, and neglected to check them.
As the client, I'd sue his ass if I lost and even if I won I'd pay only half of the fucker's bill that certainly lists a bunch of hours at $250 or something each for "legal research" instead of $2.50 for part of a ChatGPT subscription.
-
@LaoC yeah, they should sue them for fraudulent bills. But then, lawyers bill 200 hours per day and employee and seem to get away with it.
-
-
-
disappointed it doesn't get my general @error joke
-
@Zecc said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
As the client, I'd sue his ass
You'll need a lawyer.
Let me quote from the decision in Gulliver v American Bar Association 42 U.S. 401 (13 Altman 420): "Fuck Lawyers"
-
Nvidia Unveils DGX GH200 Supercomputer, Grace Hopper Superchips in Production
Nvidia’s new supercomputing silicon fuels the fires of AI.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Nvidia Unveils DGX GH200 Supercomputer, Grace Hopper Superchips in Production
Nvidia’s new supercomputing silicon fuels the fires of AI.
[Looks at the thumbnail] Can I buy a vowel?
-
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Nvidia Unveils DGX GH200 Supercomputer, Grace Hopper Superchips in Production
Nvidia’s new supercomputing silicon fuels the fires of AI.
Some nice hardware engineering there, but at least one howling journalistic error. The idea of measuring transmission efficiency in PJ/bit makes little sense unless you're doing it by modifying the information output of a star. Digging further in makes me think they meant to write pJ/bit... but you can never be quite sure. Who really cares about a factor of 1024 anyway?
-
@dkf Those pesky physicists and their distinction between uppercase and lowercase letters. How is a poor journalistic newt supposed to understand that‽
-
I can't figure this out. Are the sales actually too slow that they feel the need to keep banging the marketing drums any way possible?
AI industry begs someone to please stop the AI industry before all human life is extinguished by the AI industry
More than 300 researchers and industry leaders signed their names to a new statement warning of a potential extinction event.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
I can't figure this out. Are the sales actually too slow that they feel the need to keep banging the marketing drums any way possible?
AI industry begs someone to please stop the AI industry before all human life is extinguished by the AI industry
More than 300 researchers and industry leaders signed their names to a new statement warning of a potential extinction event.
I think they're quite serious. As for "why don't they just stop": they can't. They're in the same situation as those firms 160 years ago who employed child labor but even though it was obvious to the owners that it was responsible for absolutely horrible living conditions and in the end even detrimental to their own workforce, they found themselves unable to stop using it in a competitive marketplace unless it was prohibited by law:
We, therefore, find, e.g., that in the beginning of 1863, 26 firms owning extensive potteries in Staffordshire, amongst others, Josiah Wedgwood, & Sons, petition in a memorial for “some legislative enactment.” Competition with other capitalists permits them no voluntary limitation of working-time for children, &c. “Much as we deplore the evils before mentioned, it would not be possible to prevent them by any scheme of agreement between the manufacturers. ... Taking all these points into consideration, we have come to the conviction that some legislative enactment is wanted.” (“Children’s Employment Comm.” Rep. I, 1863, p. 322.)
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
I think they're quite serious. As for "why don't they just stop": they can't.
No. Leave. Wash your hands from the whole deal. Cease posthaste with the "I'm the great savior, the only one who can set this right" craptivism while conveniently collecting millions in salaries at the same time, if only because in the sensibility-deprived reality of today all this serves to do the very opposite.
I afford them a possibility that they're right in some way. I haven't read any of their shit, but let's not even address the awakened true AI, because it's ridiculous as a thing. Rather, current developments at runaway speeds will transform society for the worse in unpredictable ways. However, as people of grandeur they also have horrible delusions of grandeur. They need a massive smack about the head with a clue-bat exceeding the size of their bloated egos to get them down to ground.
Elsewise they should realize that this is not an honest warning. This is crying wolf.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
No. Leave. Wash your hands from the whole deal. Cease posthaste with the "I'm the great savior, the only one who can set this right" craptivism while conveniently collecting millions in salaries at the same time, if only because in the sensibility-deprived reality of today all this serves to do the very opposite.
If they voluntarily leave the field, that does nothing to address the risks, just leaves the field clear for someone else without those qualms to go barrelling ahead and capitalise on the fact that so much of the competition just up and left (incidentally, one of the statement's signatories that I am aware of did quit the field).
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
They need a massive smack about the head with a clue-bat exceeding the size of their bloated egos to get them down to ground.
So ... something like a legislative intervention?
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
but let's not even address the awakened true AI, because it's ridiculous as a thing.
Let's not, because it's not the issue, so don't bother mentioning it ... oops.
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
I haven't read any of their shit ...but that's not going to stop me commenting on it.
But, for the record, this is the shit in question:
"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war."
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
AI industry begs someone to please stop the AI industry before all human life is extinguished by the AI industry
More than 300 researchers and industry leaders signed their names to a new statement warning of a potential extinction event.
Can we please skip right to the part where we point fingers and laugh at them?
-
@Watson said in I, ChatGPT:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
No. Leave. Wash your hands from the whole deal. Cease posthaste with the "I'm the great savior, the only one who can set this right" craptivism while conveniently collecting millions in salaries at the same time, if only because in the sensibility-deprived reality of today all this serves to do the very opposite.
If they voluntarily leave the field, that does nothing to address the risks, just leaves the field clear for someone else without those qualms to go barrelling ahead and capitalise on the fact that so much of the competition just up and left (incidentally, one of the statement's signatories that I am aware of did quit the field).
That's precisely the savior complex that I want point out. It would appear they have been unable to stop this for years. So what's changed suddenly? What relevation has opened everyone's eyes and what had them blinded before (that shall be sufficient for me to continue trusting them)? It's not a new technology, and it's not like there have been too many players with the investment capability to pull it off on the world scale. The risks that are known were known long ago.
Now, if spaghetti hits the fan, they tried, as much as signing a completely non-binding piece of drivel could be constructed as trying, but you bet will enjoy the profits.
And if all goes rather well, they'll still enjoy the profits.
Very convenient! So where does any responsibility come in? There's none that I can see. Can I guess it might be a PR that says "we take the responsibility"? They don't even have the minimum decency to just shut the fuck up. Turn and face the wall, fuckers.
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
They need a massive smack about the head with a clue-bat exceeding the size of their bloated egos to get them down to ground.
So ... something like a legislative intervention?
Yes. Where is any of it? Even considering the usual tardiness of governing bodies, it's at the very least one year too late. As I said, it's not a new technology. It should never have gotten into the hands of consumers without institutions being ready to lay down some law. Not that they particularly care to enforce, but we're not even at that stage yet. We're "optimized" it to total fucking goddamn lawless Wild West.
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
but let's not even address the awakened true AI, because it's ridiculous as a thing.
Let's not, because it's not the issue, so don't bother mentioning it ... oops.
Let's not. But let's not forget that Google kook who screamed that his chatbot was alive, which pretty much kicked this shit off in the first place.
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
I haven't read any of their shit ...but that's not going to stop me commenting on it.
You're goddamn right.movBut, for the record, this is the shit in question:
"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war."
Extinction?
For the record, and while we're on the subject,
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Watson said in I, ChatGPT:
But, for the record, this is the shit in question:
"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war."Oh, has there been a shift in government policy towards preventing pandemics instead of creating them?
-
Until an AI can look at some tomato soup poured on a piece of paper that got subsequently folded in half, and declare it looks a butterfly, bird or maple leaf, it can fuck off.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
@Watson said in I, ChatGPT:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
No. Leave. Wash your hands from the whole deal. Cease posthaste with the "I'm the great savior, the only one who can set this right" craptivism while conveniently collecting millions in salaries at the same time, if only because in the sensibility-deprived reality of today all this serves to do the very opposite.
If they voluntarily leave the field, that does nothing to address the risks, just leaves the field clear for someone else without those qualms to go barrelling ahead and capitalise on the fact that so much of the competition just up and left (incidentally, one of the statement's signatories that I am aware of did quit the field).
That's precisely the savior complex that I want point out. It would appear they have been unable to stop this for years. So what's changed suddenly?
I refer you to the title of this here thread. Shit passing the Turing Test is what, at least with regard to most laymen. While I would like to believe as much as the next guy that you do need a proper model of the world to make a machine Understand™ and everything else is just a stochastic parrot, "do you really?" has suddenly become a relevant question. How would you even know it understands?
What relevation has opened everyone's eyes and what had them blinded before (that shall be sufficient for me to continue trusting them)? It's not a new technology, and it's not like there have been too many players with the investment capability to pull it off on the world scale. The risks that are known were known long ago.
It's hardly worth asking governments to make laws regarding things nobody can do anyway, is it?
Now, if spaghetti hits the fan, they tried, as much as signing a completely non-binding piece of drivel could be constructed as trying, but you bet will enjoy the profits.
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
Very convenient! So where does any responsibility come in? There's none that I can see. Can I guess it might be a PR that says "we take the responsibility"?
Did they say that anywhere? Not in the linked statement at least.
They don't even have the minimum decency to just shut the fuck up. Turn and face the wall, fuckers.
Is that a Terminator complex you're suffering from?
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
They need a massive smack about the head with a clue-bat exceeding the size of their bloated egos to get them down to ground.
So ... something like a legislative intervention?
Yes. Where is any of it?
What do you mean? The whole point of the initiative is to bring it about because it's not there
Even considering the usual tardiness of governing bodies, it's at the very least one year too late. As I said, it's not a new technology. It should never have gotten into the hands of consumers without institutions being ready to lay down some law.
Like that had ever happened.
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing. Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Until an AI can look at some tomato soup poured on a piece of paper that got subsequently folded in half, and declare it looks a butterfly, bird or maple leaf, it can fuck off.
Easy. If cou can enter "monochrome Rorschach test that resembles a butterfly" into an AI image generator and get some pretty good results, that's because it can recognize something like this.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Until an AI can look at some tomato soup poured on a piece of paper that got subsequently folded in half, and declare it looks a butterfly, bird or maple leaf, it can fuck off.
I believe this is already possible.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing.
Of course not. Children usually had to help with farming and stuff, and it was often hard work but usually not in a way that would have used up and ruined the children. It's just not what you do when you want your family to continue, and usually not even what even greedy nobles did. That started with capitalism.
Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
The traditional kind of child labor was hardly touched by labor laws and persisted way into the 20th century even in wealthy countries. The ruinous work in spinning, mining, pottery and general manufacture was only stopped by governments when capitalists themselves recognized it wasn't doing any good but found themselves unable to just stop it. That and military recruiters who made it a matter of national security when they found 17/18yo were just too chronically sick to be usable as soldiers.
-
So if this shit is already possible, where is Johnny Five, goddamit?
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing.
Of course not. Children usually had to help with farming and stuff, and it was often hard work but usually not in a way that would have used up and ruined the children. It's just not what you do when you want your family to continue, and usually not even what even greedy nobles did. That started with capitalism.
Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
The traditional kind of child labor was hardly touched by labor laws and persisted way into the 20th century even in wealthy countries. The ruinous work in spinning, mining, pottery and general manufacture was only stopped by governments when capitalists themselves recognized it wasn't doing any good but found themselves unable to just stop it. That and military recruiters who made it a matter of national security when they found 17/18yo were just too chronically sick to be usable as soldiers.
Yes, technology changed and the types of work being done changed. And then people got wealthy enough to care and stop it. It's kind of like environmental damage. When people are wealthy enough to care about that (because they're not worrying about starving, etc) they make changes to improve that stuff. Capitalism doesn't change human nature.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
So if this shit is already possible, where is Johnny Five, goddamit?
Last I heard, he was living in urban America somewhere.
(Aside: Short Circuit was surprisingly predictive when it came to AI personalities, as it turned out. Our very own Clippy is as good an example as any.)
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing.
Of course not. Children usually had to help with farming and stuff, and it was often hard work but usually not in a way that would have used up and ruined the children. It's just not what you do when you want your family to continue, and usually not even what even greedy nobles did. That started with capitalism.
Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
The traditional kind of child labor was hardly touched by labor laws and persisted way into the 20th century even in wealthy countries. The ruinous work in spinning, mining, pottery and general manufacture was only stopped by governments when capitalists themselves recognized it wasn't doing any good but found themselves unable to just stop it. That and military recruiters who made it a matter of national security when they found 17/18yo were just too chronically sick to be usable as soldiers.
Yes, technology changed and the types of work being done changed. And then people got wealthy enough to care and stop it.
Spinning, mining and pottery all date from the neolithic. What changed was the intensity. It's not like people had been "wealthy enough" not to knowingly fuck up their children's health in the neolithic, but they still didn't.
That's kinda beside the point though, which was that capitalists aren't free to just "care" and stop those ruinous practices. They will continue because they have to, until the law stops them. Occasionally they will petition for a law when they see what they're doing is dangerous to themselves.
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing.
Of course not. Children usually had to help with farming and stuff, and it was often hard work but usually not in a way that would have used up and ruined the children. It's just not what you do when you want your family to continue, and usually not even what even greedy nobles did. That started with capitalism.
Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
The traditional kind of child labor was hardly touched by labor laws and persisted way into the 20th century even in wealthy countries. The ruinous work in spinning, mining, pottery and general manufacture was only stopped by governments when capitalists themselves recognized it wasn't doing any good but found themselves unable to just stop it. That and military recruiters who made it a matter of national security when they found 17/18yo were just too chronically sick to be usable as soldiers.
Yes, technology changed and the types of work being done changed. And then people got wealthy enough to care and stop it.
Spinning, mining and pottery all date from the neolithic. What changed was the intensity.
Due to technology changes from the industrial revolution, yes.
That's kinda beside the point though, which was that capitalists aren't free to just "care" and stop those ruinous practices. They will continue because they have to, until the law stops them. Occasionally they will petition for a law when they see what they're doing is dangerous to themselves.
No doubt many of them believed that just like you do. You still hear similar arguments about slavery.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing.
Of course not. Children usually had to help with farming and stuff, and it was often hard work but usually not in a way that would have used up and ruined the children. It's just not what you do when you want your family to continue, and usually not even what even greedy nobles did. That started with capitalism.
Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
The traditional kind of child labor was hardly touched by labor laws and persisted way into the 20th century even in wealthy countries. The ruinous work in spinning, mining, pottery and general manufacture was only stopped by governments when capitalists themselves recognized it wasn't doing any good but found themselves unable to just stop it. That and military recruiters who made it a matter of national security when they found 17/18yo were just too chronically sick to be usable as soldiers.
Yes, technology changed and the types of work being done changed. And then people got wealthy enough to care and stop it.
Spinning, mining and pottery all date from the neolithic. What changed was the intensity.
Due to technology changes from the industrial revolution, yes.
If you believe that a spinning machine demands a 16-hour work day in a way a medieval spinning wheel didn't, you could say that.
That's kinda beside the point though, which was that capitalists aren't free to just "care" and stop those ruinous practices. They will continue because they have to, until the law stops them. Occasionally they will petition for a law when they see what they're doing is dangerous to themselves.
No doubt many of them believed that just like you do. You still hear similar arguments about slavery.
Unless you want to believe people who use slave labor are doing so just out of personal sadism then yes, the situation is similar today. Some medieval sultan could just have decided not to have slaves; a US slave state farmer could not (to be
: sure, he could if you consider going bankrupt an acceptable outcome) and a Kuwaiti construction company cannot.
Slavery also disappeared where it did not when wealth, civilization or caring broke out but only when it was outlawed with proper enforcement.
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing.
Of course not. Children usually had to help with farming and stuff, and it was often hard work but usually not in a way that would have used up and ruined the children. It's just not what you do when you want your family to continue, and usually not even what even greedy nobles did. That started with capitalism.
Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
The traditional kind of child labor was hardly touched by labor laws and persisted way into the 20th century even in wealthy countries. The ruinous work in spinning, mining, pottery and general manufacture was only stopped by governments when capitalists themselves recognized it wasn't doing any good but found themselves unable to just stop it. That and military recruiters who made it a matter of national security when they found 17/18yo were just too chronically sick to be usable as soldiers.
Yes, technology changed and the types of work being done changed. And then people got wealthy enough to care and stop it.
Spinning, mining and pottery all date from the neolithic. What changed was the intensity.
Due to technology changes from the industrial revolution, yes.
If you believe that a spinning machine demands a 16-hour work day in a way a medieval spinning wheel didn't, you could say that.
Yes, just like I could say that capitalism made these people do this stuff.
That's kinda beside the point though, which was that capitalists aren't free to just "care" and stop those ruinous practices. They will continue because they have to, until the law stops them. Occasionally they will petition for a law when they see what they're doing is dangerous to themselves.
No doubt many of them believed that just like you do. You still hear similar arguments about slavery.
Unless you want to believe people who use slave labor are doing so just out of personal sadism then yes, the situation is similar today. Some medieval sultan could just have decided not to have slaves; a US slave state farmer could not (to be
: sure, he could if you consider going bankrupt an acceptable outcome) and a Kuwaiti construction company cannot.
Slavery also disappeared where it did not when wealth, civilization or caring broke out but only when it was outlawed with proper enforcement.For sure, it's more complicated that what I included in my short post, but my point was regarding your assertion that "they have to" do this thing because it's the only way to be competitive. And I agree that probably some people thought that (you still do).
-
@boomzilla re: competitiveness, and bringing this mildly back on topic.
You can see pretty well how Microsoft, Google, Facebook et al. continuously breaking the laws meant to protect people from them gives them enough competitive advantage so that they 1) rather pay billions in fines than stopping breaking the law, and 2) keep any competitors out of their business.
In a world full of surveillance capitalism, planned obsolescence, anti-repair designs, license-don’t-own products, anti-social media, etc. etc., why would the AI people be any different?
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla re: competitiveness, and bringing this mildly back on topic.
You can see pretty well how Microsoft, Google, Facebook et al. continuously breaking the laws meant to protect people from them gives them enough competitive advantage so that they 1) rather pay billions in fines than stopping breaking the law, and 2) keep any competitors out of their business.
In a world full of surveillance capitalism, planned obsolescence, anti-repair designs, license-don’t-own products, anti-social media, etc. etc., why would the AI people be any different?
It's also normal for large corporations to lobby to create regulations that make it difficult on competitors, especially small ones. I'm not convinced this AI safety stuff necessarily has much to do with that, at least at the individual level (though at the corporate level it's 100% relevant, as always).
There are lots of people involved with AI that are afraid of general AI and very bad effects. I suppose that more government regulation would likely slow it all down and help that cause. The problem is that it's purely speculative. It assumes we'll actually get there, first of all. There's definitely no guarantee of any singularity happening.
The stuff we have right now I don't think you can really align in a safe way. Mainly because it's a total black box. Pretty much every attempt to do so seems to be broken almost immediately. And of course, that assumes that the people doing it even care.
Not sure we can ever get the toothpaste back in the tube at this point and personally, at least, this is way down the list of things I'm worried about.
-
TL;DR: the
is out of the bag, and people with power have every incentive to let it roam freely. Prepare yourself for your new, improved dystopia.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing.
Of course not. Children usually had to help with farming and stuff, and it was often hard work but usually not in a way that would have used up and ruined the children. It's just not what you do when you want your family to continue, and usually not even what even greedy nobles did. That started with capitalism.
Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
The traditional kind of child labor was hardly touched by labor laws and persisted way into the 20th century even in wealthy countries. The ruinous work in spinning, mining, pottery and general manufacture was only stopped by governments when capitalists themselves recognized it wasn't doing any good but found themselves unable to just stop it. That and military recruiters who made it a matter of national security when they found 17/18yo were just too chronically sick to be usable as soldiers.
Yes, technology changed and the types of work being done changed. And then people got wealthy enough to care and stop it.
Spinning, mining and pottery all date from the neolithic. What changed was the intensity.
Due to technology changes from the industrial revolution, yes.
If you believe that a spinning machine demands a 16-hour work day in a way a medieval spinning wheel didn't, you could say that.
Yes, just like I could say that capitalism made these people do this stuff.
It's capitalists who said so, and for good reason. Deliberately changing from a cheap resource to an expensive one of the same quality is generally a bad business decision. What's your reasoning for why it should be technology?
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing.
Of course not. Children usually had to help with farming and stuff, and it was often hard work but usually not in a way that would have used up and ruined the children. It's just not what you do when you want your family to continue, and usually not even what even greedy nobles did. That started with capitalism.
Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
The traditional kind of child labor was hardly touched by labor laws and persisted way into the 20th century even in wealthy countries. The ruinous work in spinning, mining, pottery and general manufacture was only stopped by governments when capitalists themselves recognized it wasn't doing any good but found themselves unable to just stop it. That and military recruiters who made it a matter of national security when they found 17/18yo were just too chronically sick to be usable as soldiers.
Yes, technology changed and the types of work being done changed. And then people got wealthy enough to care and stop it.
Spinning, mining and pottery all date from the neolithic. What changed was the intensity.
Due to technology changes from the industrial revolution, yes.
If you believe that a spinning machine demands a 16-hour work day in a way a medieval spinning wheel didn't, you could say that.
Yes, just like I could say that capitalism made these people do this stuff.
It's capitalists who said so, and for good reason. Deliberately changing from a cheap resource to an expensive one of the same quality is generally a bad business decision. What's your reasoning for why it should be technology?
Your question as posed doesn't make sense, but I'll answer what makes sense.
My point was that technology changed the nature of work. So instead of working out on the farm, people were working inside in awful conditions. It was all new, it's what they came up with. That included adults and children (who had always worked).
However, the technology of the Industrial Revolution allowed people to be more productive, which is how we got to the point that people could afford to live without requiring their kids to work.
I would also dispute your evidenceless claim about "same quality."
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
You're not wrong, but that's capitalism for you. Try to understand the history of child labor.
It didn't begin with capitalism, for one thing.
Of course not. Children usually had to help with farming and stuff, and it was often hard work but usually not in a way that would have used up and ruined the children. It's just not what you do when you want your family to continue, and usually not even what even greedy nobles did. That started with capitalism.
Capitalism made societies wealthy enough to be able to do away with it.
The traditional kind of child labor was hardly touched by labor laws and persisted way into the 20th century even in wealthy countries. The ruinous work in spinning, mining, pottery and general manufacture was only stopped by governments when capitalists themselves recognized it wasn't doing any good but found themselves unable to just stop it. That and military recruiters who made it a matter of national security when they found 17/18yo were just too chronically sick to be usable as soldiers.
Yes, technology changed and the types of work being done changed. And then people got wealthy enough to care and stop it.
Spinning, mining and pottery all date from the neolithic. What changed was the intensity.
Due to technology changes from the industrial revolution, yes.
If you believe that a spinning machine demands a 16-hour work day in a way a medieval spinning wheel didn't, you could say that.
Yes, just like I could say that capitalism made these people do this stuff.
It's capitalists who said so, and for good reason. Deliberately changing from a cheap resource to an expensive one of the same quality is generally a bad business decision. What's your reasoning for why it should be technology?
Your question as posed doesn't make sense, but I'll answer what makes sense.
Sorry, that's what you seemed to be arguing with "due to technology changes".
My point was that technology changed the nature of work. So instead of working out on the farm, people were working inside in awful conditions. It was all new, it's what they came up with.
The examples where child labor was very widely used were spinning, pottery and mining. Not exactly "out on the farm" work since approximately forever. Despite not being wealthy, medieval spinners didn't think it a good idea to work the kids on the wheel for 16 hours a day, even though they clearly could have.
-
How it started
Eating Disorder Helpline Fires Staff, Transitions to Chatbot After Unionization
The chatbot is named "Tessa" and will replace the entire Helpline program starting June 1.
How it's going
Eating Disorder Helpline Disables Chatbot for 'Harmful' Responses After Firing Human Staff
“Every single thing Tessa suggested were things that led to the development of my eating disorder.”
-
@boomzilla the question isn’t about the singularity happening or not. Stop trying to make Fetch happen, it’s not going to happen. Those people are ridiculous, even if that’s an important question to ask at some point in the (far? near?) future.
LLMs are tool, and will be used. It’s rather the question if its effect will be positive or negative. Well, actually, it’ll be both, but what about the net effect. And I’m not convinced it won’t be a net negative.
The problem is that we can’t just regulate that, since we’d have no idea what to regulate to prevent the negative uses.
And of course, as said above, even in the crystal clear cases where we know what to regulate, they’ll still rather choose break the law anyway.
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
The examples where child labor was very widely used were spinning, pottery and mining. Not exactly "out on the farm" work since approximately forever. Despite not being wealthy, medieval spinners didn't think it a good idea to work the kids on the wheel for 16 hours a day, even though they clearly could have.
Child labour was used a lot on farms in the medieval period, as well as in mines. It was less common in spinning and weaving, as those were more highly skilled jobs; part of the reason for industrial unrest in the early 19th century was the downgrading of people's status as mechanisation replaced them (and that was when child labour became more useful for those trades).
-
@dkf said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
The examples where child labor was very widely used were spinning, pottery and mining. Not exactly "out on the farm" work since approximately forever. Despite not being wealthy, medieval spinners didn't think it a good idea to work the kids on the wheel for 16 hours a day, even though they clearly could have.
Child labour was used a lot on farms in the medieval period, as well as in mines.
As I said.
It was less common in spinning and weaving, as those were more highly skilled jobs; part of the reason for industrial unrest in the early 19th century was the downgrading of people's status as mechanisation replaced them (and that was when child labour became more useful for those trades).
Yes, machines opened up more possibilities to employ children, but there would still have been plenty of opportunity for ruinous workdays before, wouldn't there? But that rarely happened. Even if they're not your kids—a slave is an expensive thing to buy and you don't buy a kid only to have it too sick to work at adolescence.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
There are lots of people involved with AI that are afraid of general AI and very bad effects. I suppose that more government regulation would likely slow it all down and help that cause. The problem is that it's purely speculative. It assumes we'll actually get there, first of all. There's definitely no guarantee of any singularity happening.
A big issue is that general AI is not a requirement for there to be a problem. You can fuck things up pretty thoroughly without there needing to be a ghost in the machine, just a lot of overblown ERPs given way too much autonomy because no-one is able to follow its (what passes for) reasoning but the results look good. As things like Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT have shown over the past several months, generating something that looks good is surprisingly easy without any actual intelligence going on behind it.
-
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
How it started
Eating Disorder Helpline Fires Staff, Transitions to Chatbot After Unionization
The chatbot is named "Tessa" and will replace the entire Helpline program starting June 1.
How it's going
Eating Disorder Helpline Disables Chatbot for 'Harmful' Responses After Firing Human Staff
“Every single thing Tessa suggested were things that led to the development of my eating disorder.”
Alternative headline: pro-obesity activist mad that a robot told her the way to fix her eating disorder is to eat less.
-
@Watson said in I, ChatGPT:
generating something that looks good is surprisingly easy without any actual intelligence going on behind it.
This predates AI, of course.
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
Alternative headline: pro-obesity activist mad that a robot told her the way to fix her eating disorder is to eat less.
Simple overeating is not qualified as eating disorder. The most common eating disorders are bulimia and anorexia. And those are literally triggered by telling the people they look fat and should eat less. The quotes in the title shouldn't be there. Such hotline is less than useless. It is indeed literally dangerous.
-
Rogue simulated AI drone never turned on its masters after all, US Air Force AI chief says he 'mis-spoke' and has actually 'never run that experiment'
The robots aren't turning against us just yet.
Now where have I heard that before? Ah.
Must be those lazy governments that will not pass laws so that killing these operators is illegal.
-
@Bulb said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
Alternative headline: pro-obesity activist mad that a robot told her the way to fix her eating disorder is to eat less.
Simple overeating is not qualified as eating disorder. The most common eating disorders are bulimia and anorexia. And those are literally triggered by telling the people they look fat and should eat less. The quotes in the title shouldn't be there. Such hotline is less than useless. It is indeed literally dangerous.
I mean, yes. But also, that doesn't apply to the particular person the article is about.
Also, TIL NodeBB supports the other link syntax.
