And?

The thing about adopting evidence-based policy is that you also need to review and if necessary change policy when more evidence becomes available. The kind of situation you're describing would surely qualify.

How on earth can you "exhaustively" deidentify millions of chat logs that could contain literally any personal details, and presumably all without OpenAI's own employees also sifting through personal information in exactly the way they're claiming would be bad if others did it?

That's the first thing I thought of, but I think the approach is different. Fabrice Bellard created an x86 emulator in javascript, and ran linux on it (later risc64). Joel Severin complied the linux kernel directly to javascript. If you look at the web page, he describes some previous attempts and how his more direct approach was inspired by them, and some of the limitations (scheduling is offloaded to your host OS, because with the web assembly build, every task in the js linux is a web worker, which because a thread in the webassembly implementation, which your OS decides how to handle.

Basically, it does appear to be novel, and it's pretty cool.

You have an illusion of your consciousness driving your actions, as opposed to the reality of consciousness being a summary of all the decisions you have already made and can no longer change.

Free will is a remarkably easy illusion to break. Here we go, I'm going to do it for you: name your three favorite actors, in order. Do it before you read the rest of this comment.

Did you do it? Was that a conscious decision? Did you weigh pros and cons between different actors to pick your best and rank them? Felt like you did, huh? Like you consciously picked something between those that were available. Was Vincent D'Onofrio one of them? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Clark Gable? Bryan Cranston? Oh, did you miss one of those? Did you miss actors you actually *know* existed, but you never considered consciously for your top pick? Oh my god, did your brain come up with a list of actors for you without ANY conscious input for you to "choose" from, even though you didn't get to choose that list?

There are several studies where we can determine what choice subjects will make before they're conscious of making the choice (picking between picture A or B) for instance. There are also studies where the corpus callossum has been cut as a treatment for people having uncontrollable seizures, and now their two brain hemispheres don't communicate. So the subject can be given a card that says, "go get a cup of water" which they read with one eye. And after they get up, they are asked the question, "why did you get up?" and they answer, "because I was thirsty". Because the brain hemisphere that didn't get the message that was read had to come up with a justification for the conscious mind for why they're going to get water.

This isn't up to debate. You can believe whatever you want. Or rather, you can believe whatever your hardware has decided for you that you're allowed to.

Yay for your anecdotal evidence. Here's mine: I drove cars made in the 80s and 90s, when they had to live in the repair shop. But I haven't had any problems with my cars in 20 years. The only times I've upgraded was because I wanted new features, and after an accident. Which I got to walk away from, because they're also safer. If I had been in a 90s car, I'd have been dead.

Now for the non-anecdotal data. Cost of car maintenance has fallen, which is making public transport less competitve. And in the US, average length of car ownership is at an all-time high, partly because keeping a car for longer is lower risk than it used to be.

Not all computation is algorithmic. Some things are heuristic. And how, exactly, do you use the incompleteness theorem to prove you have a complete answer to what lies outside your domain of study?

You should show them the way by example. Mail in your opinion on the subject to a newspaper editorial column, instead of using the newfangled computer on the internet. The way our ancient ancestors used to.

Cars without computer chips suck. That means no infotainment system, but more importantly, it means a *really shitty unreliable car* just like they used to be: what's wrong with it? No OBD to find out. Incredibly inefficient cars that waste fuel on every cycle because the fuel injection system isn't tuned and precisely timed as it is today.

For sure. And that's why I think it's important to distinguish harm caused despite good intentions and reasonable practices being followed from harm caused because someone did not follow reasonable practices or actively chose to cut corners.

Just my personal opinion, but given the track record in this particular industry, I think there should be demonstrable intent by decision-makers to follow good practices, not merely a lack of evidence of intent to circumvent or cut corners. This is expected in other regulated industries, compliance failures are a big deal, and for good reason. I see no reason why similar standards could not be imposed on those developing and operating autonomous vehicles, and every reason they should be given the inherent risks involved.

Maybe this will be an area where the US simply gets left behind because of the pro-car and litigious culture that seems to dominate discussions there.

Reading online discussions about driving -- admittedly a hazardous pastime if you want any facts to inform a debate -- you routinely see people from the US casually defending practices that are literally illegal and socially shunned in much of the world because they're so obviously dangerous. Combine that with the insanely oversized vehicles that a lot of drivers in the US apparently want to have and the car-centric environments that make alternative ways of getting around much less common and much less available, and that's how you get accident stats that are already far worse than much of the developed world.

But the people who will defend taking a hand off the wheel to pick up their can of drink while chatting with their partner on a call home all while driving their truck at 30mph down a narrow road full of parked cars past a school bus with kids getting out are probably going to object to being told their driving is objectively awful and far more likely to cause a death than the new self-driving technologies we're discussing here. You just don't see that kind of hubris, at least not to anything like the same degree, in most other places, so we might see more acceptance of self-driving vehicles elsewhere too.

IMHO the only sensible answer to is separate responsibility in the sense that a tragedy happened and someone has to try to help the survivors as best they can from responsibility in the sense that someone behaved inappropriately and that resulted in an avoidable tragedy happening in the first place.

It is inevitable that technology like this will result in harm to human beings sooner or later. Maybe one day we'll evolve a system that really is close to 100% safe, but I don't expect to see that in my lifetime. So it's vital to consider intent. Did the people developing the technology try to do things right and prioritise safety?

If they behaved properly and made reasonable decisions, a tragic accident might be just that. There's nothing to be gained from penalising people who were genuinely trying to make things better, made reasonable decisions, and had no intent to do anything wrong. There's still a question of how to look after the survivors who are affected. That should probably be a purely civil matter in law, and since nothing can undo the real damage, the reality is we're mostly talking about financial compensation here.

But if someone did choose to cut corners, or fail to follow approved procedures, or wilfully ignore new information that should have made something safer, particularly in the interests of personal gain or corporate profits, now we're into a whole different area. This is criminal territory, and I suspect it's going to be important for the decision-makers at the technology companies to have some personal skin in the game. There are professional ethics that apply to people like doctors and engineers and pilots, and they are personally responsible for complying with the rules of their profession. Probably there should be something similar for others who are involved with safety-critical technologies, including self-driving vehicles.

The perfect vs good argument is the pragmatic one for moral hazards like this. IMHO the best scenario as self-driving vehicles become mainstream technology is probably a culture like air travel: when there is some kind of accident, the priority is to learn from it and determine how to avoid the same problem happening again, and everyone takes the procedures and checks that have been established that way very seriously. That is necessarily going to require the active support of governments and regulators as well as the makers of the technology itself, and I hope the litigious culture in places like the US can allow it.

First, you're assuming that I either didn't know that "removal" as opposed to deportation, ordered by immigration officers instead of judges wasn't a thing, or that I was always ok with it when it happened under previous presidents. Neither is true. I'm the first to criticize Obama when he did something shitty (which started with why I almost didn't vote for him in 2008--as a senator, he voted to give AT&T immunity for giving the NSA metadata without a warrant. Had McCain not picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, he would have gotten my vote, but McCain had gone through several cancer scares by that point, and I was afraid of ending up with President Palin).

Second, even though the Obama adminstration (and Bush, it was also going on with the Bush administration) removed people without judge orders, they typically did it at the border. They, in my opinion, did so illegally in some cases (some of the people turned away from the border already had been granted asylum by a judge), but the for the most part, the potential for a mistake was minimal. Said previous administrations also removed people under the order of immigration officers if they were within 100 miles from our borders (because in another ridiculous US longstanding practice, anything within 100 miles of the border is considered to be on the border...so you can get searched without a warrant, for instance, as if you just landed at an airport if you're within 100 miles of a border). It is terrible, I never liked it, I criticized it back then.

So, what's changed with Trump administration that makes it that much worse? First, the removals within the 100 mile ring that happened before were all against people who were *convicted* of a crime by a court. So they got some form of due process, even if it's not satisfactory. The Trump administration has included people that were *suspected* of being gang members, without a conviction, often with the most ridiculous excuses. Take Abrego Garcia, who got into a database for being a potential gang member because he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat at a Home Depot. And got subsequently accused of human trafficking because once he was driving a car with 9 people in it. And speaking of Abrego Garcia, no previous administration performed removals that sent said people to *prison* outside the country. The Trump administration also abandoned the 100 mile ring thing, and they can take people from anywhere.

Or take Mahmoud Khalil, who got his green card revoked and was arrested because he was taking place in a peaceful protest. He wasn't even *accused* of a crime, the administration is literally saying that his first amendment rights are dangerous because he's protesting against their position on Isreal, and that's the reason he should be deported.

Here's the thing: if you don't get to go before a court, how do I know you're here illegally? What's to stop them from sending you there, and never giving you a chance to show you're a US citizen? Because, guess what? Due Process is how you PROVE they're here illegally, or that you did anything wrong. And you can't deny the Trump administration escalated things from "this shouldn't be allowed by the courts" to "oh shit, this is 1933 Germany crap." Because...again, you argued that the removals were happening, but completely ignored my point that the removal was to OUT OF THE COUNTRY PRISONS WITH KNOWN HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

I'm not saying government officials should be required to volunteer anything to reporters. Beyond what is required by freedom of information act. Information that has reason to be restricted can remain restricted, and although I prefer the government to be as transparent as possible, if the pentagon had said, "we're not dealing with the press anymore," I would find that disturbing, and a bad choice by the administration, but I wouldn't call it part of a fascist regime. What crosses the line is that they're saying, "after we give you the information, you have to let us see what you write, and give us veto power over what you publish." And selectively giving information only to outlets that sign that agreement.

Are you seriously going to argue that's not a propaganda office?

No, and I'm not sure where you got that from. I pointed it out because Fox and Newsmax are organizations that typically side with the current administration, but even they agree that's a step too far. It's not partisan, it's objectively worrisome.

As much as I don't like his completely unprofessional and disrespectful to the office attitude, I recognize his trolling. That's not what I was talking about. I'm referring to his claims of having the power to do whatever his wants as *justifications to actual actions he has taken*. For instance, tariffs. The law says only congress has the right to enact those. There's also a law that says he can enact those in an emergency. So he uses the justification of a fentanyl epidemic for tariffs that he *also clearly says are not due to address the fentanyl epidemic, but as part of negotiation tactics*.

He's being open about violating the law with flimsy excuses. Again, how are you justifying this?

Anyone, conservative or liberal, that isn't extremely worried about Trump's authoritarian regime's jailing people without due process in out of the country prisons, attack on free speech of any opinions he doesn't like (such as denying press reporting on the pentagon if it's not cleared by them first, something even Fox News and Newsmax refused to agree to), and overall vague claims to having the power to do whatever the hell he wants are the ones suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I've lived through multiple Republican Presidents, I've disagreed with both Republican and Democrat presidents, I've never been worried for our country before. This isn't political, and anyone who thinks it is needs to wake up from their cult of personality.