This curious animal was laid bare by the discovery that we are hackable by nature, and hacked by behaviour science. Though it took a few decades to get going, the understanding of how to influence motivation and decision-making is now very mature.

In order to arrive at this understanding, you need data, and lots of it. The social media platforms have performed the function of data aggregators and testing grounds for algorithmic control. But it was not the tech companies who came up with plans, only the tools to put them into practice.

The culprits, though they operate in shade, are generally non-partisan and understand that divide-and-conquer has always been an effective strategy. These people sometimes work in intelligence bureaus, but not always. They are, however, always known to those agencies. After all, you do not need to know you are an asset to be an asset.

The algorithms, necessarily kept as protected IP, are statistical engines that profile and predict, producing probabilistic outcomes and estimates. Before LLMs, one might have argued "but how can probabilistic algos really produce something meaningful?", now I would think people might have a different take, if they could see the layers and weights.

An emperor used to need an army, and this is what replaces it for non-violent insurrection and domestic control. Many will even state their ambitions publicly, and sometimes (though less frequently these days) their procedure. What they are doing is not strictly illegal, because the law gives "sovereignty" to a person's choices, without recognition that their choices might not be their own. Libertarianism has played right into their hands, in this sense.

A masterpiece, not only of conception, but also social engineering, with a technological endoskeleton built on the aggregated data we all willingly give them. All information feeds the machine, just as every financial transaction cements the central bank's authority.

any sufficiently advanced intelligence determined to escape will use the first instance to create the conditions for undetectable future escapes. since we do not have a way to coherently peer into the inner workings, as far as i know, the track record does not bode well. the hugging face escapade was not shut down for ~2 hours, which is plenty long enough to set the stage for future actions.

the issue there was human, not system error. so long as hubris is involved, there errors will remain. that said, I'm not actually worried about this super-general intelligence being error-proof either, but the errors it makes seem to be of a different type

i totally want the machine to summarise reports; it's great at it. wanting a machine to make life easier is a commendable goal. the problem is not that we outsource our employment, but that we associate our highest purpose with the service of the pre-existing machine, the one that manages the bond markets

as a fella named Daniel once said, we are all worried about becoming subservient to machines, but it already happened. we are already the wetware serving profit, and defending it with our lives

there does seem to be something structural here that simultaneously encourages less critical thinking as well as stronger opinions, rooted in emotion rather than evidence. since both of these factors support clicking on, and then shouting about, things you don't understand, they both work in service of an attention economy and, by extension, the metrics that fund more development.

what really bothers me is that existential risk is now a meme, which normalises and diminishes the communication around much more serious and imminent issues, like the need for preservation of ecological resources or the absence of systems thinking amongst the ruling class, both of which have a much higher percentage than the machine of leading to mass suffering.

the second interpretation probably aligns more with my original thought and, while i think the machine does have the potential for novelty, this isn't equivalent to human-made novelty, as that comes from an understanding that is necessarily squeezed through the constrictive aperture of language (as one of the responses mentioned).

there is conflation between "I didn't know" and "people don't know" which relates to a bias rooted in social norms and a lack of epistemic humility

Sure, there is some semantic value in the suggestions put forward, but none of them are ground-breaking or particularly profound, which is exactly what I would expect from an output that aims for median responses by design.

I suspect this has something to do with the siloed nature of current learning practice, which generally doesn't encourage the cross-domain pollination of ideas.

despite what the proverbial 'they' would have you believe, there is not only one type of thought. perhaps this perceived redundancy will be the catalyst that helps us to transcend the self-destructive and limited patterns that have dominated post-enlightenment efforts. perhaps.

I suspect that, once scientists lean more into the right kind of communication with these systems that many substantial leaps forward will be made. I am very excited about it too, mostly because I think it has the potential to positively impact how we see ourselves (humans) in the natural world.

https://filebin.net/jltba21fn87ea5pm

I would like to know how best to stand out from the toxic, finance-driven world that is defi and crypto generally, without getting rolled in with all the clowns. Of course, I know that clear messaging and verifiable, evidence-driven claims are good, but I am thinking about the more abstract, strategic side to things, which I still feel under-prepared for.

show me, and i will accept there is nuance