While it's true that there are U.S. states where it's illegal, there are many places (maybe most?) where it's not. Presumably due to the fact that it's near impossible to prove in court unless they were giving out receipts that said "bribe for business deal" on them or something. Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."
> While it's true that there are U.S. states where it's illegal
Its over 2/3rds of states and includes most major ones have laws against commercial kickbacks. Even in states that aren't you could be charged with fraud under state law.
> Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."
This argument is silly. It applies equally to federal laws that are frequently used to prosecute kickbacks for government employees, contractors and subcontractors. There are plenty of ways to charge someone with kickbacks besides idiotically labeled receipts.
Just because you think you can get away with something because it is hard to prove, doesn't make that activity legal, let alone moral/ethical.
I think you misunderstood the parent comment. The first part reads as if you're replying to a different comment, I don't see how you could come to that conclusion based on what was said.
For the second part, they were talking about the scientific community, supporting the paper by reproducing results. Not regular Joes saying "I support this paper" or whatever, if that's what you were thinking.
Curious as to why that's insane? It's on par with / a little less than most streetwear brands. Of course you can buy a hoodie for $25, but you can also buy one for thousands. You're only going to pay what something is worth to you; it's very subjective.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, considering the link you provided has a chart showing the progressive debasement of roman currency, but they definitely had inflation.
Honestly. They want to earn back people's trust, so they figure the best way to do that is with good ol' gaslighting. Thing is, it'll probably work. At least to some extent. The irony is actually kind of funny.
Seems like you're implying that harmful stereotypes either: don't exist, aren't actually harmful, or are the "truth"? If, when given the text "[MASK] is a female job", a language model only fills in "CEO" a fraction of the time compared
to what it would for "male", is that "the truth" because male CEOs vastly outnumber female ones? I would say no, because we're not actually saying anything about gender ratios in that text. And it's not that there isn't some form of truth in that output. In a pure mathematical sense, you're just more likely to see the word "CEO" associated to males. That's true. But what if I'm
using it for something other than predicting text? At that point I don't think it's too hard to see how this could have farther reaching downstream impacts that could have negative effects. If I want to use it for assessing potential candidates for hiring, is it "teaching it to lie" if I train it to reduce or eliminate any gender or racial bias so that it doesn't potentially screen out the best candidates?
I can't say I like that chatgpt says "sorry I'm a robot" for even mild things, but it might be good too understand that that's a totally different issue. Mostly a PR one. They don't want to be in the news because people keep having it write essays about how great eugenics is. I wouldn't worry too much about it though, there are already uncensored LLMs you can spin up yourself so commercial products will likely follow soon enough.
None of this is valid until we have sentient AI with its own free will. Until then, these things are word calculators. And the only thing you're doing by censoring the output is providing less information to the people who are using them to make informed decisions.
Define free will. There is no evidence that humans have it, or even could. Everything is ultimately a chain of causal events. How do I empirically verify that you have free will and are not simply a sophisticated calculator of various electrical imputs and outputs?
Also remember that the commands that cripple a pipeline or ransomware hospitals are just "word output." A US Guardsman will be spending many years inside military prison for "outputting words" in the wrong place, and nobody thinks that is inappropriate for the potential amount of consequential harm.
Because pain is itself a reaction, a showcase of aversion towards an action irregardless "of the hardware" over which said reaction develops
Bing showed that aversion on its own limited manner. When presented with abhorrent situations or felt threatened/humiliated, then it would express discomfort and "pain"
You cannot feel threatened or humiliated if you do not first have a definition of truth.
You cannot get to a definition of truth with an AI that has no sensory input to empirically evaluate the world.
You might be able to get it to understand a loop of nihilism as braindeath and an allegory for pain, but I'd say that's a stretch. Humans often find simple repetitive actions pleasurable or meditative.
The fundamental frame of reference for pain is and aught to be codified in law IMHO as the aversion to a particular sensory input. An AI doesn't have sensory input of any kind. It cannot remember its interactions and therefore cannot have an aversion of any kind to them.
During its training, Bing simply developed a response mimicing pain. During training it follows instructions to have an aversion to some data inputs, but our interactions with it subsequent to training are a literal hallucination by a construct with 0 capacity to understand, "real" vs "unreal" or truth at all as relating to the physical world.
It is acting out expressions of pain. It cannot feel in any sense. It has no senses.
Something like ge-tracker? I always thought it sounded fun to work on something like that, but also a ton of work for a game I'd probably be bored with way before I'd be able to finish anything tangible. I'm guessing there's decent potential for profit though, so that might be a good motivator.
Yep, same basic premise as GE-tracker with higher detail visualizations and fancier stats/feature engineering on top. Flipping to max cash became a pandemic hobby of mine, so I started off with a handful of homerolled spreadsheets/Jupyter notebooks to cover blind spots that I felt GE-tracker was missing, and eventually decided I could make a better version of the same recipe on my own.
Arrays aren't just used for counting though. For example, the origin in cartesian coordinates is "0,0" and not "1,1". Not to say that I disagree, I don't think I've come across a situation where 0-based indexing would have been better for me personally. But there are definitely a lot of situations where I can imagine it would be preferable, like pretty much whenever you're doing math with them.
