ADORABLE.

Now, quick question: Do they sell to the government? Is the government partaking of these services? IS THE GOVERNMENT THEN VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT (using Flock cameras)? Then we have a problem here.

Seriously, do you also think the CIA murdering people is hunky dory just because a non-government corporation made the gun and the bullet?

I am a US citizen and shall be secure in my person and papers. If they have a dragnet of everyone's personal information (their location at all times) and have to search through it, they need a specific warrant signed by a judge.

But there's a simple test: Is your senator okay with someone following them around with a camera every moment they're observable from public land? No? Then applying this sort of scrutiny to the citizens is obviously bullshit.

Won't someone PLEASE think about the poor corporate overlords?

They're only violating the constitution so that they can hire more employees!

And frankly, all the hate goes does for the next Flock company. Axon? They KNOW how much people hare their rights being violated and they're doubling down on it?

Own things again?

The man deserves a heavy metal concert loud enough to wake him back up.

And I already know the perfect song for the perfect blend to blare into your morning espresso and summon the spirit of consciousness into your cold bleary-eyed body and broken soul.

I don't think so. I think this is another step in the enshitification process of offering you up to advertisers as a hog-tied roast on a silver platter. You ARE the product they're selling. Apple and Microsoft will welcome this as a good and just means of protecting children and fully support every effort to force users to identify themselves and give the companies all that succulent personal information that they currently have to pretend they don't have. When ordered to hand out that information to every program and website, they will be able to claim they're just following the law. Once every ounce of privacy and anonymity is stripped away, your account will simply follow you around they will simply know everything you do because the OS tells them exactly who you are and you will not be able to log into a computer without verifying your identity.

And the children that are installing Linux sure as hell won't be restricted by any such law they could ever hope to conceive.

I mean, really, we should all be calling this what it is: The initial steps to forcing your OS to dox you. The "dox-yourself" laws. Internet ID. Anyone that ever pretended any of these laws were ever intended to to anything to "protect children" is selling you and obvious lie or has fallen for an obvious lie.

I too wish to rage at how bad an argument the chinese room is.

Searle's Chinese Room is a 3-card monty con. There's a room with a man consulting a book. Slips with Chinese characters comes in, he consults the book following it's instructions, writes out the lines of the characters, and passes the slips out, which is a legitimate conversation in Chinese. He argues the room on the whole understands Chinese, but the man in the room does not. And so AI is fake or some bullshit. This is a crock. The book is magic and obviously conscious and sentient. Such a book would have more pages than there atoms in the universe. That's the trick Searle pulls. In the original paper he's even dodgy about if it's a book or a filing cabinet. The man, the room? Who gives a fuck? You've got a magic book that can talk to you!

INSTEAD, let us imagine the same thought-experiment, except this time instead of a magical book, there's a box with a small child from Guangdong inside. This is the Mandarin Room. Now, nothing here is any different than Searle's bullshit concerning the room and the man. 100% identical on their end. The child tells the man what strokes to make on the paper. ooooo aaaaaah Does the man know mandarin or not? Let's debate this for 40 years! But it's all bullshit because the source of intelligence and the location of where the knowledge about mandarin language resides is obvious and definite. And talking about the room as a whole is a pointless waste of philosophical drivel.

Searl damaged the AI industry with this second only to that Perceptetron book that supposedly proved neural nets could accomplish much. We could have had TensorFlow in the 70's!

.....WHAT deterministic behavior? The Heisenberg uncertainty principle DICTATES that the physical components that everything is built upon is NON-deterministic.

Bruh, the fatalists that believed "it is written" still considered themself conscious beings. Do you get that? Non-deterministic consciousness. You've married consciousness to non-determinism for some crazy reason that makes no sense.

You are pretending it's some sort of magic soup that gets poured into the mix. There's no consciousness organ hiding in your brain. It's not a consciousness cell sneaking around and poking at synapses. It is a PROPERTY or a TRAIT that exists somehow in the 86 billion neurons in your head. OR you can just come out and say that you're not REALLY talking about consciousness and what you really want to say is "souls" but without sounding like you're an alchemist out of the dark ages.

You're confusing "life" with.... I dunno "consciousness" or "intelligence" or "aware" or something. Bacteria are most certainly alive and they don't do much more than just follow programming in their DNA. Not even complicated instructions. Goomba-level intelligence. You know, from Mario Bros. The first one.

"Self-conscious" is just a type of anxiety. Usually anxious about doing something wrong. Likewise "self-aware" is something we have a very good test for and it only kicks in for humans after about 18 months. The moment that you can reliably ask GPT if something looks like it was written by GPT, it's self-aware.

A fly is certainly alive, aware, intelligent, but not self-aware, and.... man, probably not self-conscious? hell if I know.

You're confusing consciousness with free will. These things will generally do what they're trained to do. Just like you.

And while you definitely shouldn't rely on these things as some sort of paragon of truth for all sorts of reasons, even fools who can't keep two words straight have their uses.

First off GIT YE TO THE SOURCE and read what he actually wrote rather than the mischaracterizations and interpretations and lies and propaganda about what people FEEL he said.

Second, I fully understand why this discussion is a mess because Unherd hides his paper behind a paywall. So practically NOBODY is actually talking about what he actually said, they're reacting to reactions and everyone is eager to shout over each other. ....but I do too: We've hit that philosophical moment where the words we're used to don't quite apply. Like an early astronaut talking about "down". I think everyone needs to remind themselves that ants, slime molds, and nematodes all display some level of intelligence, even if small. Every human with an IQ of 80 is most certainly a general intelligence. And that anything want to say about why this pile of billions of virtual neurons isn't this or that has to equally apply to the pile of billions of actual neurons in your head.

Private enterprises are not productive enterprises; it is a necessary cost of society. Private enterprises do not build anything and possesses no means to do so. People do so, and so private enterprise must pay people for what they need.

Huh? Didn't Microsoft organize the coup at OpenAI? I mean, they didn't really have any control and wanted the talent not to mention taking down a rival. It'd be like if they managed to get Sergey Brinn pissed at Larry Page and hired him in 2001.

I simply do not have time to pour over 200 documents. And it's not like they would have exposed their plans to OpenAI, which is what Musk has access to.