negidius's recent activity
-
Comment on Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard in ~tech
-
Comment on Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard in ~tech
negidius Link ParentRegulations create monopolies by increasing risks and barriers to entry. Car regulations certainly do that to some extent, but most car manufacturers were established when the industry was in its...Regulations create monopolies by increasing risks and barriers to entry. Car regulations certainly do that to some extent, but most car manufacturers were established when the industry was in its infancy. This means that there is a somewhat level playing field and the corporations are more focused on using regulations to give themselves marginal advantages over their competitors, rather than closing the market to new competitors. The marginal cost to a car manufacture of getting another competitor is not high enough to justify focusing on enacting barriers to entry. Instead, they focus on regulations that give them an advantage or disadvantage compared to their competitors. An example of an effect of this kind of lobbying could be regulators flip-flopping between prompting and penalizing diesel cars despite no change in the evidence regarding environmental and health harms.
To see governments as being distinct from society is not a uniquely American view. I'm not American, and I recognise that governments are just groups of people. Just like corporations, gangs, churches, and all other varieties of groups, the people in governments respond to incentives and act in their self-interest most of the time. It makes no more sense to say that a government is "the executive arm of society" than to say the same about a street gang. Your view becomes especially strange when we consider governments who murder their citizens. Are those people being killed by their society rather than the people who are actually killing them? If the government are "we", are we committing suicide when it kills us?
I think it's simply factually incorrect to say that "government is better than business most of the time". Consider all the worst atrocities in our history. One thing they have in common is that they were committed by governments. As I said in another comment, this isn't to say corporate executives are necessarily more moral than their counterparts in government, It could well be that they would commit the same atrocities if they had the same capacity for violence. The point is that they don't have the same independent capacity for violence, and it makes sense to trust the psychopath with a baseball bat over the psychopath with a machine gun, even if the latter usually does what the former wants anyway.
-
Comment on Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard in ~tech
negidius Link ParentRequiring explainability would mean banning a whole class of AI technology. Such a ban would give a huge advantage to entities that can evade or ignore the ban more easily than others. Governments...Requiring explainability would mean banning a whole class of AI technology. Such a ban would give a huge advantage to entities that can evade or ignore the ban more easily than others.
Governments are capitalistic entities too. They hold capital and are driven by the pursuit of profit just as much as any corporation. They exist in a symbiotic relationship with large corporations and are an integral part of the wider capitalistic system. Governments and corporations generally have the same goals, but as governments possess far greater capacity for violence, they can impose their will more directly and don't need to rely on ostensible consent or the support of other entities to the extent that corporations generally do.
I don't understand how one can reasonably trust the U.S. government more than Google. If you were to make a list of the 100 most immoral acts of each (even limited to when they both existed), the first item on Google's list would be nothing compared to the last on the government's list. Two questions I think illustrates this point: What is the worst thing Google has done that wasn't on behalf of a government? What is the worst thing the U.S. government has done that wasn't on behalf of a corporation? A bonus question could be: How many people died as a result of each action? This isn't to say Google executives are necessarily more moral than their counterparts in the U.S. government. It could well be that they would commit the same atrocities if they had the same capacity for violence. The point is that they don't have the same capacity for violence, and it makes sense to trust the psychopath with a baseball bat over the psychopath with a machine gun.
The only difference between interpreting regulations based on the 'spirit' and the 'letter' is that it moves some of the quid pro quo from the movement of enactment to the movement of enforcement. Some of the money that would have been spent lobbying legislators will instead be spent lobbying regulators and judges. The outcome for those who cannot afford to lobby is even worse, because even if they find a loophole in the law that would enable them to enter the market, the law can simply be ignored by a judge who really enjoyed their vacation courtesy of the other party.
-
Comment on Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard in ~tech
negidius Link ParentI don't trust Google to do the right thing. That's one of the reasons I oppose regulations. I don't want Google to have a monopoly. I want Stability AI and other smaller entities to offer...I don't trust Google to do the right thing. That's one of the reasons I oppose regulations. I don't want Google to have a monopoly. I want Stability AI and other smaller entities to offer alternatives, so I don't have to rely on large corporations like Google and Microsoft.
You cannot trust governments (or corporations) to do the right thing. You can open almost any page in most history books and newspapers and read about the atrocities committed by governments in pursuit of power or profit. All the worst atrocities in human history fall in this category.
One of the main reasons regulatory agencies exist is because large corporations want to remain large, so they lobby governments to create barriers to entry so that they can continue to exploit captive consumers without having to worry about competition.
-
Comment on Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard in ~tech
negidius (edited )Link ParentI strongly disagree with AI regulations. Google would probably benefit, as they could afford the costs of compliance or avoidance, but smaller competitors could be shut down. Regulations create...I strongly disagree with AI regulations. Google would probably benefit, as they could afford the costs of compliance or avoidance, but smaller competitors could be shut down. Regulations create monopolies, and it would be incredibly dangerous and harmful for Google and Microsoft/OpenAI to have a duopoly over AI.
Another danger is that regulations could prevent research from being conducted in the open, meaning large corporations and governments who can circumvent the regulations would be the only ones who could conduct effective research, and could develop AI technology unhindered while everyone else is constrained. This could for example lead to a situation where a government or corporation could create deepfake footage that is not just beyond everyone else's detection capabilities, but beyond what everyone else believe to be possible.
AI could be one of the most beneficial technologies to ever be developed if it remains wildly available, but it could become the single most harmful and dangerous technology if access is restricted to only the most powerful.
-
Comment on Should retail businesses be required to accept cash? in ~finance
negidius LinkNo, I don't think so. I prefer cash (and privacy focused cryptocurrencies) for the privacy benefits, but I don't think other people should be forced to facilitate my preferences.No, I don't think so. I prefer cash (and privacy focused cryptocurrencies) for the privacy benefits, but I don't think other people should be forced to facilitate my preferences.
That depends on what you mean by "what it's doing". You can see that a particular token has a particular probability to succeed the previous token, but as far as I understand, you cannot explain why. You cannot, for instance, tell what piece of training data caused the model to return a particular output. If a LLM tells me that pistachio ice cream tastes better than pecan ice cream, as far as I understand it, it's not currently possible to automatically generate an explanation for why it said that rather than the opposite. Am I wrong about that?
I'm not. I was born and raised in Europe, and have never lived in America. The comment I originally responded to advocates for regulation specifically by the U.S. federal government, so it makes sense to compare Google with them specifically. Another reason to use America is that most English speakers consume American news, and understand references such as the one about the vacation. If I referred to something from elsewhere in the world, you would probably not have known what I was talking about.
No matter what government you want to compare with, I can't imagine the result would be different. Think about the worst thing Google has done that wasn't on behalf of a government. Can you honestly tell me that your government hasn't done many things much worse since Google was founded?