Harari's framing makes AI sound like a jungle predator learning to wear a suit. The scarier version is that it's the suit itself — and the person wearing it has already left the building.
I don't necessarily hate this, because you can easily read it as highlighting the AI systems' lack of agency. Rather than posing it as a threat for what it's going to do, it poses a threat for what it doesn't do that believers expect it to: actually exercise judgement and thought.
Honestly that part alone reminds me of the pastebin debacle where people just failed to consider that these things are in fact publicly accessible.
I keep bouncing back to this one and I think that the core objection is that the method of discourse that they're trying to advance here is fundamentally incapable of handling people actually disagreeing. Like, the whole concept of "identifying a crux" basically requires that there's a central point of agreement somewhere. In my experience a lot of these issues are better understood as tradeoffs and compromises. It is simultaneously true that some people will do terrible things left to their own devices and locking them up seems to be one of the only things society can collectively agree to do about it and also that locking people up is fundamentally cruel and it's bad that we do it. The challenge isn't in identifying the central point of agreement between those two but in managing their fundamental incompatibility.
However, according to the threat hunters, the victim can’t recover the encrypted data, even if they paid the ransom demand, because the agent escalated “from row-level deletion to dropping entire database schemas, narrating its own targeting rationale,” without backing up any of the encrypted data.
As usual, even when these things display legitimately impressive capabilities they still fuck up in ways that completely negate the whole point of doing it in the first place.
I never said it was a good old Star Wars expanded universe novel.
You know, some cities (at least one because I live here) delay their local pride celebration until July to avoid competing with larger cities in the local metro area. Don't get too comfortable if you want to avoid being seen and celebrated, is what I'm saying.
Did anyone else read the old Star wars Novel Darksaber by Kevin J Anderson? The Hutts kidnap/hire the designer of the original death star to build them one of their own, and while the new Republic is gathering up the requisite heroes to do what they do to death stars we get to see the Hutts cutting corners and embezzling. The fleet arrives just as they're ready to turn it on and instead of blowing our heroes up the subpar construction fails and it just fucking explodes.
No idea why that came to mind all of a sudden after reading this piece.
I mean at some point someone is going to try and make this argument so they can actually extract profit from their slop-inator. And it's gonna be real funny to see what they had to say about copyright law during the training data gold rush.
This gets dangerously close to acknowledging that the rationalist method isn't actually very useful for any area where it isn't trivial.
Yeah. The Haitian revolution was absolutely a high point of postcolonial Caribbean history, but the resulting state wasn't exactly able to project power and export their revolution through material support. It gave slavers a reason to double down on repression, but outside of Haiti itself it's a propaganda win more than a change in the scales.
It's also fascinating because I thought the OP was pretty clear that there's a difference between decision theory and "desirable dispositions" which I interpret as covering the kind of counterfactual preferences indicated here. Actually there's an even more fundamental issue with this as a decision theory problem which is that it misidentifies who is actually making a decision. Changing the applicant's decision theory (while leaving their preference for thievery intact) doesn't matter to the person actually deciding here.
Don't get me wrong, it's also a wildly racist example to put forward, it's just also a bad example and where there is an argument it's addressed in the OP.
Glad to see that "regulatory uncertainty" continues to mean "we figured out that the government might actually care if we do something illegal"