I maintain that I'm being banned -- not for engaging in the already present ideological battle on HN, but merely for engaging on the wrong side of it.

There are famous engineering incidents that are good to study -- the Challenger disaster, the Minnesota Bridge collapse, the Therac 25... But compared with the LANL Criticality incident, there's something different. The former are all technical failure analysis.

This incident is almost existential in it's implications, like Shelly's Frankenstein. A discussion on the nature of humanity.

It instills the idea that you should be asking a question at this point. Some information has been provided that should generate more questions in your head, if you're keeping pace.

Can't be depressed if your mind has been chemically lobotomized.

I have found that people treat depression and anxiety like a medical condition -- diabetes, or high cholesterol.

Yet I can measure those numbers, compare them with other people similar to me, determine what ranges are outside the norm, and observe changes as I try different strategies to manage them.

Depression, like physical pain, can neither be measured nor compared. And if this analogy holds, then there are those who would rather dull their pain with medication and claim victimhood, rather than find the source of it.

And then I look at the WEF guys, who want to make personal vehicle ownership not a thing and think... Boy it's happening. We're turning into Cuba with ancient cars on the road -- eventually none of them will be personally owned. And we're totally happy about that prospect for now.

2016: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/goodbye-car-ownership...

Here's the real issue, which this semantics argument is derailing. Several times, a shooting spree has occurred, and all the government agencies say, "Oh, yeah... We knew about them! Anyways, the mass shooter's community is very much under attack..."

Pretty hard to swallow when the federal agencies are spending time and resources holding a magnifying glass over political opponents (with a long, LONG track record of nonviolence).

How would you feel if you found the past three weeks, there was someone parked outside your home, who followed you to work, and logged when and where you left?

I mean, it's all public information, right?

How would you feel if they did this, specifically because of your political beliefs?

But all this to me is a cheat. We've already built the robot, and the control systems, and feedback mechanisms, and placed a goal on the end result for it to work towards.

I think the external constraints we put on the system mean that the creation will never surpass the creator. Oh, the mechanical muscles will be stronger and faster to the point we can get robot ballet. But it will still be bounded by the limits of our imagination and capabilities.

When it comes to LLMs, I'm sure it will create fascinating stories that are loved more than Tolkien. But the stories will still be limited to the bounds of our own thought.

If you ever feel like discussing religion, my Twitter DMs are open!

From someone who has the opposite view, that human consciousness did not arise from an evolutionary process, but was created by God -- I believe we will never fully create an artificial consciousness.

I think a further assumption is that the human mind is a deterministic machine. If we could freeze whatever entropy is involved with human behavior, just like the seed of a Minecraft world, we could get the same result, and perhaps even control human behavior.

I don't think consciousness is deterministic like that. I have some things I can point to for justification, but much more largely, there are some strange implications that arise from "we're all dancing to our DNA".

Anyways.

The only thing is you don't have to worry about this in the future, it's already here. [1]

1 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio...

And yet there's something sinister about twisting an evolutionary model into a reeducation camp.

LLMs are not human, but strikingly similar. If we have no qualms about how we treat it, then what will we do to real people?

But truth isn't political. As long as we think it is, we will continue to follow the descent into madness. Truth is just that: truth.

The only reason we think truth is political, is because our chosen leaders so heavily depend on lies that the truth would destroy their reign.

Our society is actively declaring that falsehoods are truth, and should be celebrated. We're hallucinating ourselves. All this software does is make sure LLMs hallucinate with us.

Few people are arguing this is an issue of copyright infringement. It's a very weak argument.

> You can't sue someone for mimicking someone else's voice well enough

This isn't "mimicking". You can sue someone for impersonating you, especially if money is involved.

Learn to spot the DARVO tactic: Deny, accuse, reverse victim and offender.

Note the standard of justice being used. It's not, "impersonating someone to use them as a stepping stone is wrong, no matter who does it, or who is the victim".

The standard is, the rich and powerful don't "deserve" equal protection from the law, the real victim is the artist who isn't being recognized because the industry isn't playing "fair". So it's ok if the underdog breaks the law, because the world is stacked against him.

Yeah, and basket ball isn't fair because I'm fat and uncoordinated, and math isn't fair because I'm stupid and don't want to study.

Ironically, these were the same people that said, "Nobody deserves a platform to spread the 'wrong' ideas." when it came to censorship on Twitter, and had the gall to call it "accountability" when people were banned for wrong think about vaccines.

If you're scratching your head and saying, "Wait, what am I missing? That makes no sense! Ten seconds ago it was the rich and powerful censoring the poor underdog, and that was bad. But now big pharma backed censorship is a good thing?" -- it's because you're the sane and logical person, and they're the ones without a consistent worldview.

Drake has a right to decide what his voice says, and have a monopoly on it.

The AI artist is not "harmed" because they can't use Drake's voice.

I can't believe this needs to be said.