tavavex

7 ms·

1.
by tavavex 3d ago
+20% is a sizeable return, but I don't think anyone would look at me right if I made such an investment and then said "I earned $100 for every $1 invested". This is a mathematical statement with concrete numbers, you can&#x27
2.
by tavavex 3d ago
I think I agree with the parent more. For one, not all "smart" appliances are made equal. You can see the appeal of some of them if there was no customer abuse, like with smart TVs. But things like smart microwaves are a harder se
3.
by tavavex 6d ago
Look at it. This is the part where you repeat the same comment and substitute in modifying the software, opening the device and putting in listening hardware, putting a microphone under your skin, attaching a microcontroller to their outsid
4.
by tavavex 6d ago
But that's exactly why I said it's not possible. Some people may be able to forcefully change themselves into truly believing whatever is the most advantageous for them, but most aren't. Once the illusion is shattered, you us
5.
by tavavex 6d ago
I'm not sure an LLM will have a survival instinct in the way you say it. While they are trained on an imprint of humanity, they also lack the physiological motivation that humans have to remain alive, which is arguably a lot more poten
6.
by tavavex 6d ago
Most atheists can't 'just choose' to believe in a god. This is also why most religious converts come from other religions and not non-belief. If they thought about their opinion and made that decision consciously, the suspens
7.
by tavavex 7d ago
They could do anything if they wanted to, but there's no point in discussing it, because they won't. Self-enforcing moral standards interferes with the money thing, which is the only thing they will not sacrifice. The goal isn&#x2
8.
by tavavex 7d ago
Why would they do that? Venture capital isn't there to serve people like us or to protect any kind of common interest. There is only one thing they know - money.
9.
by tavavex 7d ago
Tracking vehicles lets you strongly infer who's driving them. Individual people have already gotten into trouble over their vehicles being spotted by Flock. If it could not be used to track people, the technology would be almost useles
10.
by tavavex 7d ago
No, it is an argument that the best way not to abuse something is to not have access to it. If you enshrine a ban of total surveillance on a deep and universal level in a country, it'll be a lot more difficult for a future bad actor st
11.
by tavavex 9d ago
This was true at some point in history, but not now. It's been 34 years since the last constitutional amendment in the US, 55 years since the last successful proposal. And arguably almost the last hundred or so years of their amendment
12.
by tavavex 9d ago
> it's not like it's not known It's not known. Ask the average person that owns a smart TV if they think they're being listened in on. Or even what kinds of data they think their smart TV collects. I could bet you any
13.
by tavavex 12d ago
Why not? You can do anything if you find an RCE, and automatically finding exploits and backdoors by letting LLMs act unsupervised seems like what everyone's interested in these days. The payload would quietly set up the required softw
14.
by tavavex 12d ago
No, we have something that's less apocalyptic right now. You're talking about abuse, I was talking about the automation of abuse that's faster and more pervasive than anything individual bad actors could've done in the p
15.
by tavavex 12d ago
OpenAI is rightfully being shamed for being so hands-off and reckless with their 'experiments'. But the real scary thing for me is that they still had some tooling to hold them back, as evidenced by the need for technical workarou
16.
by tavavex 12d ago
It doesn't matter how much it makes. If the system finds that you've financially damaged someone, you aren't asked to just pay back the exact retail price of one unit. It can account for the overall damage to the owner, your
17.
by tavavex 12d ago
Your reasoning makes no sense. Laws are not indicative of how dangerous being outside is, the only indicator is getting into danger. The child did not get into any danger. The point you oppose still works - "they" made you (Americ
18.
by tavavex 14d ago
But what are you trying to say about the greater argument? The parent had two parts to it - make merging as difficult as unmerging, or make unmerging as easy as merging. While you're right that the wiggle room for making unmerging a
19.
by tavavex 15d ago
I think he's constantly trying to time the peak (of AI improvement, of compute capabilities, of profitability) and keeps having to readjust his predictions every time it's proven wrong. Timing the peak is a fool's errand unle
20.
by tavavex 15d ago
> We have people telling us the next recession being imminent all the time. Others told us that NFTs were key to the future of art. That's quite the conflation, and a very subtle way to tie a claim that's still unresolved to on
21.
by tavavex 15d ago
It's almost impossible to predict how much demand there will be in that scenario because the world would be a very different place if that system was the default. And with things that are relatively cheap to make, such as professionall
22.
by tavavex 15d ago
I think the author is getting his wires crossed, his religious beliefs are affecting the way he reasons about technology by providing narratives that we shouldn't assume are true. It's especially evident here: > We're so m
23.
by tavavex 15d ago
You're the one being "hilariously melodramatic" here by first inventing something the other person didn't say and then patting yourself on the back for taking down that imaginary argument. Any sufficiently large robots w
24.
by tavavex 15d ago
Correction: remember what party was leading before they had to fight a far more popular opposition, before they became the recommended choice of the US, before they tried to import the American culture wars into Canada and before they infam
25.
by tavavex 16d ago
I'll elaborate on my opinion. I think that asking for a single universal rule that seemingly impartially decides how to display certain names shows that I conveyed what I meant too indirectly. Asking for a universal rule on map labelin
26.
by tavavex 16d ago
Why do you think it's called 'Lite'? Are you going to argue that Google did us a favor by benevolently removing functionality?
27.
by tavavex 16d ago
I'm also Canadian. The nuance here is that this is not an average contested border or naming issue that mapping companies rightfully treat very carefully. There is no actual dispute between two peoples or two nations, or anyone, on wha
28.
by tavavex 17d ago
The province of Ontario is named after the lake, not the other way around.
29.
by tavavex 19d ago
Being the Task Manager Guy became his whole brand. Any time he's brought up, the Task Manager topic is sure to follow. No wonder he's doing more Task Managers. It's so pervasive it's kind of funny.
30.
by tavavex 19d ago
You picked a really bad analogy is what I'm saying. We're not debating imperatives, we're talking about ways of interacting with the world. From what I can see, humans have more ways to interact with the world around them tha

More ›