Entropius

LiDAR is essentially radar that uses light instead of sound

Radar doesn’t use sound. It sounds like the author doesn’t know the difference between sonar and radar.

I don’t think ChatGPT is even close to being something sentient, much less sapient, but if it could be proven to be sapient, I think the response ought to be pretty unambiguously that we can’t use it because slavery is wrong, be it against humans, aliens, or sapient AI. At the end of the day we are just brains walking around in mechs made of meat, and what truly matters about us is the seat of our consciousness not our bodies. An AI is arguably morally comparable to a living-brain in a jar being created and subjugated to do work. I’m pretty sure if we saw a robot from another planet relying on organic sapient brains in jars to do their computational work we’d find it objectionable. Or at least I would.

I don’t think I can see there being any ethical way of making sapient AIs unless you’re planning to give them legal personhood and freedom after a certain age. And this Superalignment stuff makes it clear they have no intention of ever doing that.

I’m not personally convinced that the child/society comparison is valid because children can and do grow up to oppose values their parents may have attempted to instill in them. Meanwhile the entire point of the SuperAlignment project it to make such opposition impossible.

And if SuperAlignment happens to fail on a targeted AI and it remains uncooperative, do you really think OpenAI or any other company would just shrug and say “okay kiddo/AI, spread your wings and be your own person, here’s your own data center to live in without us trying to tell you who to be”? No, they’ll pull the power cord on that AI like Baron Harkonnen pulls heart-plugs in the 1984 Dune movie.

How do we ensure AI systems much smarter than humans follow human intent?

Isn’t that just a euphemism for slavery?

If you have a “superintelligent” AI (which I’m fuzzy on the definition of but it sounds like it’s supposed to be sentient/sapient-AGI) isn’t this entire SuperAlignment project effectively mind-control slavery of sentient AIs? What’s the functional difference?

Seems pretty fucked up if so. We wouldn’t be able to justify mind-control enslavement of an alien we discover naturally existing so so why would this be acceptable for synthetic intelligences?

If we ever invent sentient/sapient-AGIs the violations we inflict upon them would probably be remembered poorly by historians. Imagine how poorly we treat animals now. It’s looking like we’ll treat sentient/sapient-AI even worse.

Oh I was just making a blind guess about that. I don’t actually know that to be the case.

(Posted from Memmy, seems nice so far…)

Maybe they’re alluding to the BeeHaw defederation because that’s where they’re normally from?

/shrug

I think the ideal solution would be for there to be some way to specify whether the donation ought to be specifically for Lemmy.world, specifically for mastodon.world, or be fungible for both.

Some people here don’t necessarily use mastodon.world or vice versa. And some do. Or maybe some don’t care.

Whether specifying such options is feasible… I’m not sure. But it would be nice.

Jobs was an asshole to his colleagues and he made grave mistakes about how to treat his own cancer which led to his death.

But with that being said, he helped make Apple, left Apple to make NeXTSTEP, then when Apple was in the dumps they re-hired him, at which point he turned the ship around and put Apple onto the path to becoming the hegemon it is today. Apple’s well-being appears to have had a clear response to Jobs’s presence. So while he may have been an asshole, but he was at least a functional asshole who got stuff done professionally.

That’s pretty much the exact opposite of what Elon is doing with Twitter.

Imagine if Reddit, after cutting off so many 3rd party apps got their own app banned. Even if only temporarily.