Taking nothing at face value gives you just as much of a distorted view of reality as taking everything at face value.

When your default explanation for everything is "companies are lying about everything", you end up just as incorrect as believing they're always telling the truth.

It's not outlandish that models have these capabilities, the number of CVEs I see as a sysadmin has exploded and we're seeing novel math discoveries nearly every week now. OpenAI does not need to pretend to commit a felony to demonstrate it, that's pure conspiratorial thinking.

This is a very important distinction to make -- complaints should be be about what is happening, and should distinguish that from what is not yet happening and should not. Because beyond the maxim that we should try to deal in facts... if OpenAI thinks people can't tell the difference anyways, they'll be justified in thinking they may as well just do the thing they're already being accused of doing.

That's the reason why. That's just too big of an "if".

Any premise that is predicated on an artificially-induced complete paradigm (counter to the interests of capital, no less) shift to bear significant fruit is pretty much a non-starter. You need incredible buy in for that (which right-to-repair is just too niche to have), and established interests will still push against it every step of the way.

Maybe the EU could do it, but even then I'm skeptical.

Their point is that unpopular climate policies are exactly what is pushing the general populace towards this sort of regressive climate policy you're describing. "Maybe we should make a change in political leadership" is not a productive contribution when the current leadership is the result of bad policy messaging. GP isn't opposing leadership change, they're explaining how to move towards it.

(As much as I'd like to believe that people will just gain an educated understanding of the issues and choose correctly, the unfortunate fact is that real-world politics doesn't work like that, and has to contend with the fact that populism is what wins elections)

That's precisely the problem here. You're "sure" that a problem you don't actually fully understand is trivially solved in a simple manner, when the reality is that this sort of thing is incredibly complicated, and there's a multitude of reasons and competing interests that have resulted in the current equilibrium.

This is the sort of change that requires a country's laws to have to be rewritten from the ground-up, because it invalidates so many assumptions. It's the sort of thing you typically need a constitutional amendment (or at least, a novel interpretation of the existing text) for.

So, yeah, they're lacking the political will for that.

1. This is very literally what already happens, it's called a EULA.

2. In practice this means you are required to personally come to the customer's house to fix bugs (or any other ridiculous edge case that wasn't "fully stated"). As much as I strongly agree the law should swing much further in the direction of the consumer, as GP points out, that only holds until it's your obligation to the customer on the line. "In favor of the customer over anything else" is not a legally viable clause.

https://www.pangram.com/history/c410d4b4-abfd-4ca0-b52d-db0d...

Even though this article is conveying good (and useful) information, it seems to be completely AI-generated.

Pangram clocks it as 100% AI: https://www.pangram.com/history/c410d4b4-abfd-4ca0-b52d-db0d...

Someone else in the thread lists it as 99%: https://www.salahadawi.com/hacker-news-ai-detector

Also, it sort of jumps out at you if you're used to reading AI writing. Claude loves to start paragraphs with "Here is the uncomfortable part".

I'm not necessarily saying this automatically makes it bad, but everyone should be aware of the source of their information.

https://www.pangram.com/history/c410d4b4-abfd-4ca0-b52d-db0d...

Or, put more bluntly, your belief in what people ought to feel entitled to has no bearing on what they do believe, and policy needs to address the latter, not the former.

In fact, I'd argue that statements about what "is" and "is not" sentient relies on even more spirituality and word games for anything that isn't a terran tetrapod.

For a meaningful -- "helpful" -- discussion on such things, one has to assume that everyone is choosing a definition which is closer to the median usage and relies on not being totally subjective. Furthermore, given the breadth of options, it should be assumed to be a definition which allows which permits the form of the question to be meaningful, rather than begging the question -- if your definition is tautological enough that non-biological entities can't have understanding, you're just expressing dogma rather than having a discussion.

Anything else is bad faith, or assuming bad faith on the part of the participants.

I have not seen any instance of this frequently-made assertion which is at all justified. It seems to rely on a definition of "understand" which is more about spirituality than actual observable evidence (they clearly can comprehend even complex tasks well enough to execute on them, and if you won't call that "understanding", you're playing word games rather than stating an objective fact).

Likewise, agents can literally come to a greater understanding of a problem through trial and error, and there are plenty of mechanisms to retain that knowledge. If you don't want to call that "learning", you're just making a choice to define it in a way more restrictive than how we use it for humans, and intentionally making communication more difficult.

There's a reason why ai xrisk doomers had to come up with the term ASI.

I would seriously suggest that everyone take a look at the wikipedia page for AGI from the month before ChatGPT was released, compare it to the current version, and not come to that conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_genera...

(The other relevant difference is that the labor market involves a significant unilateral power imbalance between the employer class and the employee class, which is the biggest contributing factor which leads to the above difference)