- AI centralizes power in the hands of capital, rendering those who can afford compute hardware vastly more capable than those who cannot and thus increasing social stratification

- AI is generally trained on the creative output of humanity without those who train it giving back proportionally (copyright "rules for thee, not for me")

- AI breaks social processes built around the idea that TRYING something is inherently a cost in time or effort, such as filing a legal claim or sending someone a threatening letter. We haven't made the social changes to punish or charge people for using every appeal/option/application, so this makes asymmetric-effort tasks like applying for a job really bad in the interim

- AI use makes it harder to develop the ability to critically think for yourself, especially among those who most need to develop that ability

- AI produces large amounts of mid-tier content, making it harder to discover exceptional human-created creative content produced after AI started to exist

- AI leads to distrust in remote communication, increasing cynicism and breaking social bonds generally. This is NOT your point about "AI spreads misinformation" - no matter whether it's true or not that AI can be used to produce misinformation, having people doubt each other is a harm

- AI demand crunches hardware and time availability for other adjacent markets, such as computer gaming, construction, 3D graphics production, etc. This harms both hobbies and professions in those fields having to cope with rising prices and lower availability of materials

- Everyone is using the same or similar AI, leading to a homogenization of culture and process across humanity. This is perhaps a mixed blessing, because humans are capricious, but less variety can be viewed as a harm

I will also say I personally hate seeing "job loss" said to mean "wealth loss" or "people starving". The goal of life isn't to have a job, it's to be well and happy. If you can be well and happy without a job, great, so it's really painful to me how people don't even see those things are not the same.

For example, let's say hypothetically I want to be secure against the threat of Google pushing a targeted update to my phone that runs malicious code. Turning on automatic software updates from Google would make me vulnerable to that threat. Using MicroG instead of Google Play Services would make me less vulnerable to that threat. But Graphene devs say things like "MicroG is less secure than Google Play Services".

Similarly, if you want privacy you might secure your device by locking the bootloader with your own keys - not a third-party vendor's keys. Saying that's "insecure" is extremely misleading: it just puts you in charge of security, instead of abdicating to someone else.

I wish there were something like GrapheneOS that let you choose, yourself, who to trust instead of requiring you trust an OS vendor implicitly.

Also nobody would offer the contract in the first place because the employee would keep their inalienable right to choose how they spend their own time (not working).

EVERY contract is about giving something up in exchange for getting something. In most legal systems a contract is void if either party gives nothing. So in a world where nothing can be signed away, no contracts exist at all.

If it were inalienable, things like regional distribution agreements would be void, since you could sign away your ability to sell in a certain country and then compete with your distributor anyway.

Let's keep some perspective here - there is no "inalienable right to sell apps to smartphone users via a private commercial storefront".

It doesn't matter if the false partition is unlocked or not - you can plausibly deny there's anything on the phone at all.

I also wish that GrapheneOS link didn't say a duress PIN forces the attacker to think twice about entering a PIN, knowing it could wipe the device. It doesn't do that for anyone aware of its existence, since of course the attacker can prevent the secure element from sending a delete command to the flash chip. Obviously if you know the device could attempt to delete itself you would break that feature before sending the code to the secure element...

If I drag a browser window to the right, making it cover the right-hand half of my monitor, it serves no useful purpose for "centered" content to migrate to the left edge of the window (the physical midpoint of the screen).

Centered means centered within the virtual viewport, not the physical screen.

This is still science, in the same way it's still science when we breed cows to produce more milk without understanding the full bovine genome.

If something isn't right with the model we pour extra effort into our science - the training algorithm - and train a new one.

At no point does anything ever require peering into the slurry of random digits that make up the model itself, any more than using a computer requires understanding its DRAM training values computed at run time, or any more than pouring water requires understanding the laminar flow along the pitcher's surface (an unsolved math problem!).

We don't have to understand the resulting product at all. Genetic algorithms are an example - we understand the evolution function, not what evolves from it.

You build a power plant on a geothermal vent in Iceland. The electricity it produces is plentiful and cheap. You run it full tilt charging batteries.

You ship those batteries to wherever you need cheap power, and send them back empty. This works with hydro, wind, solar, ...

Batteries do drive down energy costs because even ignoring transmission lines, they let you move energy in both space and time, pushing all energy costs towards the cost of the cheapest means of generation on its best day.

2. The LLM outputs text containing "call tool X"

3. The tool outputs text

4. The LLM is passed another context window, containing the original text plus the tool call output

How has the signature helped matters? If you discarded the malicious text in the first place, there was no need for it be unsigned/unverified. If you didn't discard it, it's still present in the LLM input at step 4, there for the LLM to """""mistakenly""""" use to shape its output.

Replying a different way: if you made it so the LLM were not, under any circumstances, allowed to do harmful things, then it would be harmless. The reason it's not harmless is that people want the LLMs to be able to do things like deleting a document... but they only want the LLM to do that when they intended for it to do so, and the only arbiter of their intent is their own text which is arbitrarily mixed in with third-party content.

For example, users want to be able to say "email the document referenced in this email to Claire". So the LLM needs access to functions read-this-email(), search-document-by-name(), and email-designated-user(), and there's your problem.

There aren't two different inputs to an LLM, just one. You can put any text you want in the input (the "context window"), but fundamentally the current architecture of LLMs is a function taking one argument. So signing doesn't help because the portion that's signed is commingled with the portion that's not signed, and sometimes the LLM will "do things" based on the unsigned portions' contents.

If your objective is to expend as little energy as possible, it would be irrational to expand into space - that's a waste of effort.

If your objective is to experience as much of Earth as possible, it would be irrational to expand beyond the solar system - there's nothing there that could aid experiencing Earth.

If your objective is to exterminate all life on Earth, it would be irrational to leave the planet - everything you need to accomplish your objective is right here.

"rationality" is when you understand the impact of your own choices. "irrationality" is when you act in a way counter to your own goals, due to misunderstanding or lack of self-control. Whether one is rational or irrational is entirely separate from what their goals are.

Creating a non-human intelligence necessarily means it might have non-human goals. It is absolutely not the case that those goals would require leaving the planet, or be optimally accomplished by leaving the planet.

In other words, being intelligent does not mean somehow being interested in the same things intelligent humans are often interested in. Your argument is critically flawed because it assumes that only certain goals are "rational goals", when in reality an intelligent being could have any objective, including objectives that are alien to most humans.

How about wanting power? Resources? Beauty?

Those are goals, not logic. Rationality is a means by which you set plans to reach goals. It's entirely orthogonal to what those goals are.

Wanting to exterminate all life is also a goal. It could be rationally accomplished. Let's hope nothing superhuman ever sets that goal.

I don't see why these standards should change when the hammer also emits text messages.

"Membership is a question they ask a server" is a bogus sentence. "membership" is not a "question". It's syntactically valid semantic nonsense.

"Membership is dictated by a server" is one of several human sentences saying what that one is trying to.