And have a small delivery fee.

And have a small “city wants DoorDash to pay its workers fairly, so it’ll charge you an arbitrary amount extra” fee

And a bag fee.

And sales tax.

And a tip

Oh and don’t forget the service fee.

I’m not kidding, this is from a recent receipt. There are 6 fees PLUS the cost of the actual food.

Other delivery platforms are similar

But I think the biggest benefit, which we shouldn’t overstate, is that agents will just update docs as they find them. Including for big picture systems. Keeping docs updated is a PITA.

Writing style of AI often sucks. But I’ve found it pretty easy to rectify. And having some correct context is better than nothing or outdated docs in a lot of cases.

And that’s not even counting for however much I’m subsidized on the highway and road systems I don’t pay anything to use.

Public transit is definitely expensive, but the alternative is also very costly and also regressive. The goal with public transit is to provide a low-cost, high-density way to move people around the city. It’s a public service, it shouldn’t be making profit. Car ownership is more expensive in total and very space-inefficient. Cities don’t have room for space inefficiency.

You can make what you have look as good as it can, and I’m sure everyone does that.

But AI fabrications are crossing the line to outright lies, which is by definition violating integrity.

Ok, so you do understand the hype. I mean cost & speed are reaaaaally big issues for normal LLMs. If you can fill a specific use case way cheaper and way faster, that’s a fantastic development. We need more niche tooling that’s more efficient and better for niche use cases. Not everything has to be general purpose.

Not clear to me that playing games is the point of jev. This post is just a random fun experiment someone did because they wanted to.

The only reason to NOT flee is if the government didn’t care about whistleblowers and has amazing protections for them, even in the context of national security. Does it?

Maybe you think what he did was morally wrong. Who fucking cares, what the government was and is hiding is even more morally wrong.

And profiting on it on a scale that’s hard to fathom. Someone who spent effort creating a great resource or doing some research and maybe got some income via donations, ads, whatever. Now that information from their resource is distilled into a big model. The original author is screwed, the model provider makes money through the effort of everyone else. It worked well for everyone before, because there was recognition, prestige, a sense of doing good for people, even a chance for some income. That’s completely eliminated with AI.

Apple just needs a capable personal AI that respects privacy. They could eventually get that by self-hosting open model inference on their private cloud compute. They don’t need to light billions upon billions of dollars on fire to build data centers and do training to make a frontier model that’s nearly already a commodity. If they’re not selling tokens (and why would I want them to), that approach seems financially stupid and risky.

So it should be utterly unsurprising that many people are going through a bit of an existential crisis around this. Because what you actually sat down and enjoyed doing, what motivated you, may be entirely gone now.

And on top of that, there’s an extreme amount of pressure to do more in less time, which is by definition stressful. And do much more context switching.

I’m not claiming humans are morally superior in sum (there is a lot of evil as well as good.) But it’s pretty obvious that humans are the superior species evolutionarily in that we’ve essentially dominated the planet. And on some level, are beating evolution itself (by fixing genetic issues and helping the “least fit” to survive and reproduce.) And are also the only species which has doctors for other species.

All I’m trying to say: I can easily accept other species are intelligent and emotional. The fact that I can know that and accept that, to me, speaks to human “superiority.”

Does superiority matter? Not most of the time. What about when it comes down to life and death? If the choice was to keep one human alive or one theoretically more perfect AI alive? (Boil down utilitarianism into its essence.) doing the “most good” is by definition a human construct. Maybe an agent could have one. But if you don’t accept human superiority on some level, would you accept that a more perfect AI deserves to live more than you? To me, that’s the implication.

People have created machines that can, at their core, regurgitate human knowledge. They do not have long-term memory, self-direction, self-improvement, emotion, etc. At their very best, we have harnesses that can bootstrap short-lived artificial intelligences that can perform tasks and do knowledge work.

At best, we have artificial, short-lived, simulated consciousness. Human consciousness at its heart has a lot to do with emotion and experiences. An AI does a task today and goes away. The simulated consciousness hasn’t experienced or learned anything, even if can improve its environment (harness). Any expressed emotion is simply a ghost of the fact it was trained on the works of an emotional species, or RL to make it more approachable to humans.

I think there should be a lot more burden on folks trying to argue that (effectively), machines should be considered morally equivalent to humans.

Yes, having massive implications on society is a fucking fair and reasonable thing for a human being to be concerned about. Anything related to survival of the species is biologically reasonable to be concerned about.

The fact that we’re even considering this concept is an indication that human consciousness is special. Do other apex predators decide not to eat meat because it’s conscious? Despite some level of animal intelligence, they have no sense of morality. (See e.g. Orcas playing with their food.)

Other species simply do what it takes to stay alive, and that’s what this truly boils down to. If giving AI rights would lead to the destruction of humanity, yes, we should be be concerned.

For example, utilitarians might think of the greatest good for conscious species (simulated or not). Well, it’s trivial to have billions of AIs, and not so trivial to have billions of humans. Whose greatest good wins?

I frequently have to disable 5g and switch data to LTE to get any actual service, even when I have full bars of service. It’s highly annoying phones don’t do this by default

Climate scientists, in fact, predicted that there would be fewer hurricanes than normal this year because of El Niño. (https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/how-does-el-nino-impact-atlantic-h...)

I think it would be fucking foolish to look at a system as complicated as the climate on planet earth and think “hm, I think warming by a couple degrees has barely any impact on the weather.” In fact, El Niño is an amazing example that localized warmth in one specific area can completely halt the hurricane season.

But while that’s great, for now, it’d be extremely short sighted to think that a system which can do that is always going to act in your favor.

In fact, a complete lack of weather systems at all is a bad thing if it means your region doesn’t get rain anymore. Which is currently happening in Indonesia, because of El Niño, and is devastating (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/el-nino-fuels-wil...).