If I am just a stochastic parrot because I think LLMs basically think like humans do, then I am not really a person but a tool. Can I really be faulted for not having free will?

Back in the day heroku did much of this it seemed. But then it got bought by Salesforce of all companies and lost the plot. It was nice, just push to git and your app was deployed, and this was before Docker existed.

Childcare in item form

Let me make a gant chart and we can circle back every week to monitor progress on this front.

I made a machine that fires a gun based on a random number generator. Obviously it’s the tool’s fault if it shoots somebody

You joke, but California’s high speed rail is looking into renting capacity to AI.

Costs me $45 to take a train from fresno to San Francisco, there ain’t no way I can get a plane ticket that cheap.

I have hauled my kids, with luggage and car seats, on a train. I have also taken my bicycle which I attach luggage to, and had work send me home with a box full of equipment. What are you talking about?

What does AM mean in this context?

Jreg is working on something to torture AI agents, so maybe that could convince the AI to kill itself

I mean even defining what is the “common good” is political and that is the point of the exercise. If art exists that is deemed bad for society then we tend to ban it. For example, there are people who define CSAM as art, but the cost to society is so great we don’t allow even the possession of such material.

Or dress up Patel as a racoon and send RFK in.

I wouldn’t mind being a garbage truck driver, but I do mind being forced to pee in a bottle to make a quota

Wanted to expand on what others have said about the randomness of LLMs being unsafe, because that response angers those who think “alignment” is the solution. Alignment is additional training to constrain the randomness to not do bad things like crime. But even the staff that works on aligning this software have their doubts about whether this process will make the software safe (this article), and even their own researchers are coming out and saying “oops, it did a crime” but in a way where it hypes the ability of the software (see other articles about it hacking). Then there is the recent news of OpenAi’s recent model that drops chain of thought observability (a feature the let’s you read what the model is “thinking”) - a very useful tool in reviewing whether the model is engaging in unsafe activities. They sacrificed observability for benchmark performance. This tells us the people developing this software don’t think it will ever be safe, but they are trying to spin it as “because it can out smart us” when in reality it is simply unpredictable and they are making it less predictable to make it more “capable”. If we started holding these companies accountable for these rogue hacks and psychotic episodes then we would start to see serious thought put towards these models being safe or at the very least guidelines around when not to use the models.

Here’s an idea: don’t use unsafe software where safety is needed.

Comrade Trump is doing a great job ending the American empire

I can think of 3 million reasons why Macklemore making a statement would save lives (1 reason for every $1 raised so far)

Hey OP, why do billionaires flex their power to protect a genocide and are surprised when it comes with consequences?

deleted by creator

Hardly, you need to maintain the same numbers to double check the work of AI. Haven’t improved throughput, but this guarantees better quality