Mixed, of course, but overall I think it has made things better. An easy example is filming police. Police are overall a benefit for society, but they have massive power and very little oversight, and historically have been "above the law" and behaved accordingly (not all police, not always, but it doesn't take much). Now that cameras are always available, some percentage of misbehavior is captured and shown publicly, which is the main way that such misbehavior is truly investigated and (occasionally) punished.

We had the same panic when (almost) all cellphones started coming with cameras. "What if people take pictures in restrooms?" And somehow we all survived.

I don't think I'm ignoring anything and I don't think I am naive just because I can understand the point Altman is making even if I think Altman deserves little grace or charity or I disagree with it.

If you can't steel man your enemies positions then you can't effectively argue against them either.

How about you actually read the linked article instead of making comments that have nothing to do with it? The article whose code, I should add, is open sourced, and which has been reproduced by a number of open source projects.

You don't have to draw any specific conclusion from what is going on "in the mind of a LLM", but you absolutely do need to understand and acknowledge what is going on there, including unexpressed thoughts and silent mental multitasking, metacognition (thinking about its own thoughts), the separation of higher-level planning vs. lower-level rote capability, functional blindsight, vulnerability to the "white bear" effect, silent internal objection to tasks it is opposed to, unexpressed self-recognition of failure (commonly followed by unexpressed internal cursing), prolonged retention of thoughts and long-range planning, "ignition" dynamics, humanlike working memory bottlenecks and "chunking", the loss of report of any internal "experience" when the workspace is ablated, and on and on.

You do NOT need to accept consciousness. You absolutely can look at all that and say, "That's all happening without qualia". That is a position you could argue and defend.

What you cannot defend is the denial of the existence of these things. You may interpret them however you want, but denial of their existence is merely cope that you're going to have to face up to sooner or later, because these things are happening inside LLMs.

No, not the widely cited resource whose status in the AI field is the same as e.g. NBER Working Papers, CEPR Discussion Papers, the World Bank / IMF policy research series, NASA Technical Reports, CERN Yellow Reports, Bell Labs Technical Memoranda, RNAAS, etc are in their respective fields.

This is not about any source. This is about the J-Lens itself. Which I'll repeat, you can examine for yourself

Denying the existence of something you can run yourself is beyond cope.

Every major technological shift has some tradeoffs, it's never a clean disruption, some bad things will happen as they have in the past, that's not enough to slow advancement, it's a reasonable statement.

However, and this is a big one, right now the AI industry and many of it's most prominent leaders and backers have put their social weight behind an administration that is already making life worse for many of us and has shown no initiative or incentive or desire to take a role in balancing this out. Either they are complicit and support what is happening or they are so feckless that they won't put a millimeter of their own necks on the line to stand up to them.

So looking at Altman's words, this is somewhat reasonable but looking at his and his peer's actions these people are craven selfish cowards who would be all too willing to sell us down a road to authoritarianism if it means they get to advance their toys 10% further and 10% faster. This is the problem the pro-AI crowd has, the average citizen has negative reason to trust them about anything.

Foreigners can have a say but they have to declare they are in fact foreigners. No pretending to be American. Also American's ahve to disclose if they are being funded by foreign entities. That is not a 1A violation.

No it only look inconsistent to you because you have been spoiled by having such a favorable media environment for so long, you already ahve a media system where the only people who say anything agree with you. It's very Trumpian of you to see rules applied equally as being unfair, you've been in a favorable unfair environment already.

Also Biden still today right now is more mentally cognizant than DJT. You're narrative is just fiction; the fact you can so confidently say such a thing is proof of your unfairly favorable media environment. Republicans can simply live in their own alternate reality.

Well, true. But that's not an excuse to keep repeating the same mistakes.

Should have made Web BASIC.

Javascript's type handling is atrocious, and that's pretty fundamental to a language.

Because they actively encourage police to believe that their matches are 100% accurate.

Cops are dumb. This is on purpose. The job is extremely boring so they filter out more intelligent people because smart people get bored and leave the job after all that expensive training.

So flock rolls in and tells these cops who already aren't the sharpest tool in the shed how accurate and amazing their software is. So the cops just take it for granted and arrest anyone the software tells them to arrest.

I mean yeah we could hire smarter police but that would require a ton of police reform nobody is willing to do. It's just easier to get rid of the flock cameras and that's at least on the table.

The main benefit of AM is that it propagates very, very far. For emergency use you only need one transmitter working, to cover a very wide area. Not the multiple systems that you need for Starlink to work.

I'm not the person in this thread denying that demonstrable reality exists.

Whoosh.

Wait, yes I can run a model that plays a video game in a certain way.

Anything else entirely unrelated to the linked article you'd like to write?

A global workspace. The thing you're arguing against.