No. You should never have to try to figure out what companies are collecting or how they are using it. They should not ever be allowed to aggregate data at the individual level. And if aggregate data ever becomes fine-grained enough to fingerprint individuals, then regulation should force coarser graining. (This would mean that better machine learning systems would result in companies being able to collect less data.) We should have forced audits of every consumer company.

Are the goals different, or should the original paper have done something more similar to your benchmark? Or something else?

In your conclusion, you report that PCA won on most dimensions. Did you investigate why you found that PCA outperforms MRL when the original paper found that their SVD baseline did not?

In the long run, in the AGI world, if everyone has implants, then everyone is roughly equal because computer-aided computation will be better than what any individual can do. Those without implants are screwed.

(I don't want an implant; nor do I want others to have implants.)

We are nowhere near AI being able to judge the quality of research (in fact, one might reasonably state that even most humans can't really judge the quality of research). Most things in society are not like math: we can't automate (via verification) our way out of noise overwhelming the signal.

Folks are willing to entirely abuse the public resource that is faithful, honest reviewing. (This is unsurprising; the abuse of the commons / public resources has been rising for a long time). There isn't a good solution other than something akin to draconian social scoring to limit access to the reviewing system.

There is ZERO cost to abusing the user over, and over, and over again by asking for permission to track them.

We shouldn't have the cookie banners at all because NO company should be able to do anything with tracking data. Just ban the use of user data by companies and most of SillyCon Valley's garbage behaviors are fixed.

Similarly, I should never get "terms of service updates" from digital companies because there should be no changes that they can make. You can provide the obvious service that you're providing; you can't aggregate my data for any purpose other than directly serving me; you can't aggregate my data with that of other users; if you retain my data for any other purpose, the government should take percentages of your revenue. I shouldn't have to wade through the BS that the mercenary corporate lawyers cook up to extract value from me.

Deciding "what is worth doing" requires adjudicating values, and this does not have a mathematical solution.

The development of AI is a bit like giving everyone an atomic weapon, and few people have the ethics to use it responsibly (for some technologies, there does not even exist an ethical use).

The author suggests that the people who can tell "what's worth doing" (roughly, what's right) are the ones who will succeed in the coming era. I actually, unfortunately, think it's the opposite. The people who most ruthlessly steal and deploy AI for their own gains are likely to "succeed," where "succeed" is defined by accruing greater power. Those of us who are worried about doing what is right are likely to move more slowly and carefully and to thus "get left behind."

I'm saying that if you're winning today (as measured in money/power), then by most objective notions of morality, you're probably a crappy, antisocial, person who is greedy and exploitative.

At some level it's almost definitional: if you share the material wealth you have, you'll never become that wealthy. If you don't consume a bunch of resources for the sake of your own consumption or to produce products that others consume, then you're also not going to make a lot of money.

If ethics mattered, the colonists wouldn't have taken America or slaves. If pre-existing laws mattered, America would have lost the revolutionary war (America legally belonged to the king). If ethics mattered, anyone who made money in cigarettes would be in prison. If ethics mattered, Zuckerberg and his cronies would be in prison.

If you had been concerned about ethics in the past, you would have failed to create America and failed to create Facebook, etc. In my moral framework, the worst (i.e. greediest, most selfish, anti-social) people have been winning over the last 20-40 years.

This dude needs to read some actual philosophy and then ponder it and write it himself, rather than using AI.

That's a meaningful improvement but not that big. Perhaps the limits to this kind of technology are ~50% fuel gain? https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/01/24/180345/hybrid-wi...

We've got AI, but I'm still waiting on exponential technological gains. So far I've mostly gotten exponential enshittification of my google experience. Is AI going to unlock the detonation engine and bring down the cost of my plane ticket? https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/11/23/181486/exploding...