5 ms·
What you wrote makes no sense in the chain: "If you accepted that C were a crime than C should be sanctioned" - this is not the point. Who argues against that n
by mdp2021 4d ago
What you wrote makes no sense in the chain: "If you accepted that C were a crime than C should be sanctioned" - this is not the point. Who argues against that non-matter?
You stated that the submission did not represent the facts because the facts are about banning «research on ASI», and you were replied that what we are doing in the LLM direction cannot be other than researching ASI. And you were told: and we must, because we cannot be contented with morons.
- throw310822 4d ago> You stated that the submission did not represent the facts because the facts are about banning «research on ASI», No. I stated that the submission is idiotic because the point is that the law wants to severely restrict AI research at least for some time. Agreee, disagree, I don't care. It's not proposing to jail people who are AI researchers by trade or specialisation, or who conducted AI research in the past. It's proposing to make further research illegal, therefore imposes penalties on those who would illegally pursue it- be they researchers, managers, financers, movie villains, companies, etc.
- mdp2021 4d agoHow can you interpret «developers and researchers working on advanced AI» as «people who are AI researchers by trade or specialisation, or who conducted AI research in the past» - nobody in their sanity would understand that. Or are you complaining against the brevity of the title - knowing that we have to fit the title into a short space? There are really no possible misunderstandings in the submission.