• 0 Posts
  • 379 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle








  • Scubus@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyzcall of the void
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Thats a super cool outlook! Props to him for coming up with it. I really appreciate the response, i like your insights. I pretty much agree with all of that. There is another form though, people that have struggled with suicide their entire life, and for immutable reasons will continue to stuggle with until they die. For those people, there should be a humane path. But filtering out those from the temporarily depressed seems a gargantuan feat.




  • Scubus@sh.itjust.workstoScience Memes@mander.xyzcall of the void
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ok, then we are in agreement. That is a good idea.

    I think that at low levels the tech should not be hindered because a subset of users use the tool improperly. There is a line, however, but im not sure where it is. If that problem were to become as widespread as, say, gun violence, then i would agree that the utility of the tool may need to be effected to curb the negative influence






  • Copyrighting voices to defeat AI would achieve nothing. Modern AI’s can be overtrained to the point where they strongly resemble their training data, but that is a problem that will be fixed within the next 5 years, which is way earlier than we will see any legislation regarding AI if our geriatric government is anything to go by. After that, AI will generate its “own” content that will be legally protected as its intellectual property.

    I base this off of the fact that every media from humans is inspired by previous media. Fundamentally, once it stops directly plagiarising, there is no legal distinction between what a human would be doing and what an AI would be doing, unless we want to come up with a legal classification of “human” that explicitly rejects AI.

    That opens up a whole new can of worms though. If you define human to be having human dna, does that mean the 3 babies they have been genetically altered are not human? Or are they, because they comtain at least some human dna? Does that mean i can give my AI a vestigial organ and now its legally protected? Does it have to run off a brain? What is a brain? If i duplicate the neural connections in a brain with mosfets down to every single connection, that is indisputably a human intelligence running on possibly non human hardware depending on the word of law. Or is it a human intelligence? They would react the exact same way to their organic counterpart, down to having the same memories and emotions. Does their non-biological hardware preempt them from being human? Does a pacemaker? Or neuralink?

    Theres a lot to be worked out here, but it seems to me to be much less problematic to target the people wanting to misuse AI rather than targetting the tool itself.