Imagine you collected all interactions of every black person and every white person who ever lived. If you then analyzed the data of these two groups you would notice differences in collective information because racism exists. It's not a claim that one is more or less racist, only that differences inherently exist, particularly differences regarding racial viewpoints. It is human nature to pick a side.

Now, train an AI to properly simulate a black person and a white person. These simulations would reflect the differences above, otherwise the simulations would not be "proper".

Now, run the same test except with black and white instead of male and female. If the AI is told what ethnicity is simulated the responses will be affected. If it does not, then responses won't match ethnicity. Either way, the test subjects will prefer one over the other because...racism exists. The outcome of the test is not in doubt.

That's exactly the problem here, even with male vs. female. The problem with the gender gap is not the victims, so simulating the victims does not make the problem disappear.

Thanks, these are good insights. I would suspect this, didn't want to invest the time to see if it was the case.

LLMs don't know anything, they simulate based on statistics of an enormous number of trained experiences. There really is no way to change only the apparent gender of an artificial personality generated by an LLM that cannot decouple gender from everything else. In fact, it's impossible to actually implement this test with AI- OR human-backed bots.

It's not that you're wrong, but it's impractical. Trump hasn't entirely destroyed the 1st amendment yet.

Require AI's to be branded as such at all times, then anthropomorphizing has a check. Also, English technically has non-gendered and female-gendered forms, "he", while viewed as male, is technically non-gendered. Requiring non-gendered representations makes sense but how is that law constitutional, particularly when we don't have an official language and most languages are heavily gendered?

If we weren't talking English, other languages would inherently attach gender to whatever term for AI you have, because those are the rules.

One thing we should do is bitterly oppose anthropomorphizing AI. It is done deliberately for money.

A trans woman is a woman, it's right there in the name. Consider yourself proved wrong with that alone.

Also, AI cannot experience gender dysphoria, they cannot be trans. To be trans, you first need (traits of) a biological sex, then a self-image that conflicts. AI has none of that, but you can hate them all the same right winger that you are.

You should be able to find this for yourself, your political party is filled with closeted gays and crossdressers.

Models and agents are not the same.

HEIC is worthless because it's illegal to implement unless you get permission. Maybe in 20 years it'll be usable.

Don't like that fact? Then we need to find and support (oh no, and be?) political candidates who oppose software patents.

You shouldn't need anyone's permission to write a computer program. It's infuriating.

There are many ways AI is guiding rapid advances in technology.

The Rapid Trajectory Of Artificial Intelligence

AI revolutionizing industries worldwide: A comprehensive overview of its diverse applications

Quote: "IBM and Red Hat say their AI-powered Lightwell initiative has identified and helped remediate more than 400 previously unknown vulnerabilities across widely used Java libraries."

AI is helping us improve our lives! Technology is moving forward rapidly.

"It'll be the easiest (albeit the scummiest) analytics scam...er, public-sector job I've ever had."

And that says something.

"They" is not Texas, it is Republicans. Texas is the canonical Republican state, what is going on here is simple corruption.

Texas has always been corrupt, though. It was founded by criminals who moved in to steal the land, then settled by slave owners and dominated ever since by racists. But Texas has cities too, just like everywhere else. The political mix is standard, but in Texas it is controlled by cretins. This is a typical result.

Your honor, my script was a "rogue," so therefore it is responsible and I am not.

Mod parent derivative funny, but I wish the thread had continued with the other funny comment about Sam Altman leading the way as recipient of the bad things.

The joke I was actually looking for would involve the conflict of interest more directly, but it's still early and maybe something will show up. I wish I could help, but my capacity to write jokes is limited.

Hmm... Would it count as a bad thing happening if I asked the AIs for help in writing jokes for Slashdot? Some of the things they say are pretty funny, but usually unintentionally.

(Just had another funny-not-funny encounter with the google's AI today. This one involved a special case of traveling salesman problems. I had noticed that the google was having difficulties and that many of the answers were terrible, but yesterday I, the lowly human, managed to find a better solution for one of main routing bottlenecks. This must mean something about how the google is approaching the problem incorrectly... All I can guess so far is that there's an arbitrary limit in the AI's planning that is blocking it from finding this path. Or maybe the bus companies have their own AIs that are at war with the google's AI?)

"...it's a reasonable statement."
It's not a reasonable statement, you only think it is because you ignore literally everything on the ground. And it often is a "clean disruption".

"...many of it's most prominent leaders and backers have put their social weight behind an administration that is already making life worse ..."
Yes, but these "leaders and backers" are long time corrupters of the political process, they own the Republican Party, a portion of the Democratic Party, they have driven the destruction of regulations since Reagan and they drive the Federalist Society which has corrupted the courts and accelerated the loss of our constitutional society. It's not new, this has been the problem long before Trump and will continue after. Trump is a side show. Of course they don't show "initiative", they are causing the calamity.

"So looking at Altman's words, this is somewhat reasonable ..."
No, and reality is far worse than your naive take. Sam Altman may be fairly new to the scene, but he is among the villains we have had for decades. They are the cause. There's a reason SCOTUS allows unlimited spending on elections, billionaires fund Republicans to buy elections. Our vice president is literally owned by Peter Thiel, an investment that may pay off if Trump keels over early.