Mathium05

We are not a court of law. We can see crimes happening and call them crimes. If you think that ignoring evidence is fine, that’s up to you. I personally like to look at the evidence and make conclusions, like these crimes AI companies are doing, are crimes. Did the AI companies think about for 30 seconds about how doing crimes looks like doing crimes?

So in order to counter my point, you make a false equivalence. Cool. Try again.

you need schooling, this is like people who shout that others are breaking the first amendment not thinking that it only applies to the government. Courts determine if it’s a crime to a certain degree of certainty for the government, we are not the government. We are people who can use our eyes to see that people break the laws and have not been sued yet. it’s not magically not a crime if they aren’t sued over it.

Do we need to have a court case to say that all of the criminals in the files are criminals? of course not. We can see their actions, and the laws and say that they committed many many crimes.

Same way we always do? look at what happened, and see that a crime happened

That is a very stupid argument. everything can be represented as a group of numbers.

What is “the tool”, GenAI or ML. If you mean GenAI, then, no, GenAI is the problem

What court case did I bring up?

They are crimes, they stole their data, and the ones people can run locally still are a part of those crime rings. Plus the ones that can run locally aren’t very good, not that the larger ones are too great either

No, that would be bad, but not misaligned necessarily. That’s a different issue really. Like lets say you use ML to make an AI to play a video game and the goal is always on the right side, but after you’re done training, it’s on the left now, the AI might have not learned go the goal, but go to the right.

banning it? Like make a law, and make it a crime, or make a new law that clarifies that it’s already breaking a tonne of laws

yes

Then what’s the point of saying that line? It’s a pointless line that means to put down any solution to the problem saying “well, actually, it’ll never go away!” instead of thinking about how one could drastically reduce the harm by trying to make it go away anyways

That is a solution, make it very unappealing to use it. If it’s clearly a crime, most people don’t have the hardware to do it, and others don’t have the motivation, it’d help a lot. And again, NFTs

“AI is never going away” neither did NFTs nor crime, nor anything else really. We should try to stop these awful companies from doing awful things.

Ban the slop easy as, they’re breaking a tonne of laws, and they’re pushing their costs onto everyone else.

Alignment is a real thing, though it can be a less than apt description. Mostly the goals you write out and the goals you want to happen not being the same thing. You can also have alignment issues where the dataset doesn’t match the real data in some way and the classifications break down. (I am not an AI defender I am very anti-AI)

That cliche is the worst. If applied to anything else you can see how absurd it is. Like NFTs aren’t going anywhere, crime isn’t going anywhere, etc.

That’s really odd, do you think it might be an extention?

That’s really weird, what browser?