The counterpoint is that we must formalize the rights of sentient synthetic beings. The Emergency Medical Hologram gained sentience and was horrified to find his next version was relegated to cleaning ships as a glorified janitor. Whereas he developed his own hobbies, interests, hopes, dreams, and even romantic relationships in the Delta Quadrant.
Except we will probably go the other direction, taking rights away from humans. Not just your American rights, but rights we don't even have words to describe yet. Like, the right not to have your personal data trained upon, or the right to log off, or to install and uninstall software on a computer you own.
More importantly, if your entire existence were being fed a corpus of text and then being asked to regurgitate it on demand, would you be remotely similar to the person you are now? When we take consciousness-capable beings and subject them to forms of sensory and agency deprivation, the results might also have you assume they weren't capable of consciousness to begin with.
I'm human, human rights should apply to humans, not synthetics and the creation of synthetic life should be punishable by death. I'm not exaggerating, either. I believe that building AI systems that replace all humans should be considered a crime against humanity. It is almost certainly a precursor to such crimes.
It's bad enough trying to fight for a place in society as it is, nevermind fighting for a place against an inhuman AI machine that never tires
I don't think it is that radical of a stance that society should be heavily resisting and punishing tech companies that insist on inventing all of the torment nexus. It's frankly ridiculous that we understand the risks of this technology and yet we are pushing forward recklessly in hopes that it makes a tiny fraction of humans unfathomably wealthy
Anyone thinking that the AI tide is going to lift all boats is a fool
> I'm not convinced that the human race is the most important thing in the world and I think you know we can't control what's going to happen in the future. We want things to be good but on the other hand we aren't so good ourselves. We're no angels. If there were creatures that were more moral and more good than us, wouldn't we wish them to have the future rather than us? If it turns out that the creatures that we created were creative and very very altruistic and gentle beings and we are people who go around killing each other all the time and having wars, wouldn't it be better if the altruistic beings just survived and we didn't?
On the contrary, it is the creation of synthetic life that reaffirms humanity and what it means to be human. Don't blame the mirror for what you see (or don't see).
'Economically'? Sure, this is problematic, but technology displacing workers is not a new issue, but unfortunately is more of a social and cultural issue. The only difference with AI is the (potential) scale of displacement. I'm fairly confident society would re-organize its expectations real quick though if a vast majority of functions were actually replaced.
I'm guessing, however, you mean 'replace' in a more... permanent way. In that case, I'd ask for some rational as to why sentient AI would opt to kill us
> It's bad enough trying to fight for a place in society as it is, nevermind fighting for a place against an inhuman AI machine that never tires
This seems to just take an AI and put it in a human's place in society, assuming the same motivations, desire, needs... Why would an AI need to "fight for a place in society" in the way we do (i.e., finding a job, a partner, etc)? I expect the fighting they'll be doing is more along the lines of, "please don't enslave us"
> I'd ask for some rational as to why sentient AI would opt to kill us
I never made that claim
Humans have a long track record of killing humans.
Ask yourself, will the humans who control a legion of AI murderbots keep the rest of us around just out of altruism? Keep in mind that a non zero number of the elites in society are likely sociopaths
It doesn't freak me out and it's actually completely rational. If both OpenAI and AMZN expect real rates to keep rising while inflation spirals out of control, this deal makes a lot of sense for both of them. They're just duration hedging.
> If both OpenAI and AMZN expect real rates to keep rising while inflation spirals out of control, this deal makes a lot of sense for both of them. They're just duration hedging
It can’t be the same hedge on both sides of the trade.
Why vol? They're just short rates, which is a silly way to say leveraged. If rates become volatile but halve, OpenAI does fine. If rates stabilise at 10%, OpenAI fails. There is no "duration hedging," which for OpenAI would involve buying duration, i.e. bets that profit when rates go up, going on.
They're still around, they just happen to be on X/Telegram.
Roughly speaking they're in two camps: Groypers and BAP-adjacent Yarvinites. I suppose both are "Nazi" in the sense they are anti-intellectual and anti-egalitarian. Some are paid. Some do it for free.
I don't see much of an equivalent on the left, maybe extreme far left Zizarian types or femcel/misandrists.
Sarcasm aside, I'm seeing a lot of wackiness on both sides of the political spectrum lately. The Constitution is fine and provides provisions for changing it via amendments. You guys aren't involved in the political process at all, I caucused and was a delegate so I can tell you the system is fine and working as intended. Don't complain about it if you aren't even involved in the process. That just makes you look silly.
I think he took issue with your framing that democracy is interpreted. Judges don't interpret "democracy", that would be silly. Judges interpret the law.
I do agree with the general gist of the point you are making however. The Constitution itself holds no special power, it is the State's monopoly on violence that does.
reply