I too fear what governments will actually do in this area. But I think you may be underestimating the threat to personal agency.
Imagine you are trapped in a groundhog day like time loop - but you are not the person who remembers previous loops. "Z" is. He tries to convince you to do something, over and over and over, thousands or millions of times, refining his approach based on your reactions while you remember nothing. Are you really confident that your free will protects you from being taken advantage of in this situation?
Now imagine that instead of a time loop, Z has a million clones of you. He tries his persuasion on one of them at a time, refining it until it works reliably before using it on you. You are just as vulnerable.
Now suppose he has a billion people, not identical to you but drawn from the same distribution. He has a harder computational problem, mapping the high dimensional manifold of their responses to create a model of you sufficiently accurate to manipulate you. But with enough data he can approximate the results of the previous case without more than a tiny fraction of his experimentation being visible to you.
Any relationship where one party gets to surveil and monitor not only the other party, but millions or billions of like parties, has the potential to be a deeply abusive one. We should not tolerate such situations whether the surveilling party is a government or not.
It depends on whether people wake up to the threat before or after there is a robot army that can crush them, doesn't it? If humans are economically and militarily useless, it won't matter what they choose.
> This system, bizarre as it is, is your guarantee against the pharmaceutical companies suppressing a promising new natural medication. Your insurance company pays $300 on fish oil, and in exchange you go to sleep at night secure that no one has discovered that potatoes cure cancer but decided to cover it up to protect their bottom line. Good deal? Given the current health system, it’s better than you had any right to expect.
Potatoes aren't on Schedule 1; that makes this situation suck a little more. But probably the alternative scenario is just the treatment remaining illegal forever.
I think this is reasonably precise. "Uniformly" means that all points within the unit circle are equally likely. You can sample this distribution by picking independent rectangular coordinates and rejecting points outside the unit circle. I'm sure you can sample it in polar space by using an appropriate nonuniform distribution for radius (because a uniform radius would not result in a uniform distribution over points in the unit circle). If you want to sample directly in some really weird parameterization I guess markov chain monte carlo methods are available.
That has always been the statement (i.e. I've not updated it since adding the post). I do agree that the "uniform on area" bit should have been made more clear!
I'm not sure Newton deserves shade for working on transmutation. The reason chemical reactions can't turn lead into gold was totally unknown at the time.
So if someone (actually, practically everyone) who runs an AI company says AI is dangerous, it's bullshit. If someone who is holding NVDA put options says it, they're talking their book. If someone whose job is threatened by AI says it, it's cope. If someone who doesn't use AI says it, it's fear of change. Is there someone in particular you want to hear it from, or are you completely immune to argument?
I actually do believe that AI is dangerous, though for different reasons than the ones he focuses on. But I don't think he really believes it, since if he did, he wouldn't be spending billions to bring it into existence.
If AI makes humans economically irrelevant, nuclear deterrents may no longer be effective even if they remain mechanically intact. Would governments even try to keep their people and cities intact once they are useless?
For Newtonian gravity at least, the gravitational force everywhere outside a sphere or spherical shell is exactly the same as if it was a point mass (and everywhere inside a spherical shell it is zero). Not sure if it holds exactly for general relativity.
I can't help but think that numbering all the devices was the wrong idea from the beginning. You don't want to talk to devices, you want to talk to (and offer) services. You probably need something like an AS number to make global routing efficient, but 32 bits would be plenty for that. A packet could be (destination AS, stream ID, encrypted( payload )) and DNS would give you a capability (destination AS, stream ID, keys) for a service. You send a packet to that stream asking to open a connection and providing a capability to reply (with a capability for the specific stream). Your network up to the AS level should have an opportunity to augment the stream IDs in whatever way is convenient for its routing. No one reveals any topology information, network neutrality and a degree of privacy is guaranteed at the protocol level, only really serious multipeer networks need to assign addresses above layer 2, and I think it would be reasonably easy to come up with an edges first incentive compatible transition plan (which is where ipv6 went wrong).
(This is of course an incomplete and poorly thought out proposal, you don't need to dogpile me about that.)
Imagine you are trapped in a groundhog day like time loop - but you are not the person who remembers previous loops. "Z" is. He tries to convince you to do something, over and over and over, thousands or millions of times, refining his approach based on your reactions while you remember nothing. Are you really confident that your free will protects you from being taken advantage of in this situation?
Now imagine that instead of a time loop, Z has a million clones of you. He tries his persuasion on one of them at a time, refining it until it works reliably before using it on you. You are just as vulnerable.
Now suppose he has a billion people, not identical to you but drawn from the same distribution. He has a harder computational problem, mapping the high dimensional manifold of their responses to create a model of you sufficiently accurate to manipulate you. But with enough data he can approximate the results of the previous case without more than a tiny fraction of his experimentation being visible to you.
Any relationship where one party gets to surveil and monitor not only the other party, but millions or billions of like parties, has the potential to be a deeply abusive one. We should not tolerate such situations whether the surveilling party is a government or not.
reply