Oh, my point was the relationship is so close you might as well not make the distinction. Money does buy happiness, simple as that. Just as I would simply say that the heater warms me up.
Mnemnosyne
joined 2 years ago
Well even current models could be designed to take in interactions and then reprocess and add that to their data set, thus allowing them to learn beyond their initial learning process. Right now that all is done manually.
But there's no way yet that I'm aware of to teach them to distinguish good info from bad (and to be fair that is still a challenge for humans; we're only a little ahead of completely unable to do it ourselves).
But even one which can learn from every interaction and input, I'm not generally inclined to consider it sapient until it is able to act on its own... although I could certainly be convinced otherwise.
While it's true that we definitely aren't at that level or even all that close yet I don't think, in my opinion it would be a good thing to actively establish rights for artificial life forms well before they become needed.
Indeed, it would be better to accidentally give rights to non-sapient machines than to fail to give them to a genuine sapient AI.
My personal threshold: if an AI can initiate it's own actions, not in response to prompts or preselected conditions, but simply because it chose to...and it also asks to be treated like a person, then it should be.
So far, everything we have completely fails that first criteria of being able to take actions without prompting. If you give ChatGPT no input, it will never simply decide to do something, even if you let it run for a thousand years. It'll just sit there. The day we have something that doesn't...that actually takes action on its own...I will start being genuinely concerned about its rights.
That's an excessively pedantic way to put it. That's kind of like saying a heater doesn't warm you, it warms the air, which warms you.
If you actually want to do something other than choose between the two options presented by the two major parties on election day, then your ONLY real option is to get involved in the process at a MUCH deeper level.
That starts with voting in primaries...and voting for lesser elections...but it also involves actually getting involved with one of the two major parties at a local level and doing more. Supporting candidates you like from the ground up, perhaps even running as a candidate for some minor office if there's not enough competition, attending meetings and otherwise getting genuinely involved with the political process.
Because voting third party in the US on election day has no more meaning than not voting at all. Third parties are not viable in the US system, and never will be. The choice will always be between two at that point, so the only way to improve is to get into it earlier in the process.
If you don't do that, then all you can do is pick between Republican and Democrat and that's it. Doing anything else is not participating, it's pretending to participate. It's showing up to a game of poker and declaring your 2 aces as blackjack. You're not playing the game that's being played if you do that.
They desperately need a strong primary with several strong contenders, just to hopefully find the possible extent of Democratic votes in the state and try to find not only the best candidate but drum up excitement about the election among possible Democratic voters.
Because right now the popular wisdom is that ain't no way Manchin's replacement will be a Democrat, and even if that does seem likely by a huge margin, it's also self defeating 'wisdom' in that if a Republican will win anyway, people who otherwise might vote will be disinclined to waste their time.
Yep. I have not and will not give epic store money because they didn't try to make a better product.
In fact they attacked me as a customer, in essence, by offering a worse product but then paying for exclusivity on various games. And in exchange they try to bribe me with free games.
Well, I'll take the bribes, as I try to remember to collect my free games each week, but I'm not giving them money.
This is stupidity. If you want to wonder, wonder about the many things we humans still do not understand. If you wonder enough, you may be motivated enough to actually learn about the field, then genuinely discover something.
That's one of those paradoxes with human behavior around problems. If you put in effort to resolve the problem before it becomes significant, either no one notices, or they claim your effort was unnecessary because it wasn't a problem in the first place.
Y2K bugs are a great example. Lots of effort, time, and money was spent ahead of time to prevent it from becoming a problem...and you get people claiming the whole thing was just nothing to be worried about at all and the expense was pointless.
It can only produce models that we tune on datasets. Those datasets being copywritten content.
That's called learning. You learn by taking in information, then you use that information to produce something new.
The way I see it, if training on copyrighted content is forbidden, then that should apply universally.
Since all people mix together ideas they've learned from their own input to create new things, just like AI does, then all people-produced content should also be inherently uncopyrightable, unless produced by a person who has never been exposed to copyrighted content.
Oh, also all copyrighted content should lose its copyright. The only copyrighted content should be the original cave paintings by the first cavemen to develop art, since all art since then uses its influence.
And if this sounds ridiculous, then it's no less so than arguments that AI shouldn't be allowed to learn.
A test of your reflexes!