Zarobi

$10 an hour still seems really good though right? I’m not sure how much Airlines pay currently for fuel though.

Only article I could find was this: flyinginsight.com/…/how-much-does-it-cost-to-fuel…

On average, a 737 or A320 consumes between 2,500 and 3,000 litres of fuel per hour

Take a typical two-hour flight, such as Amsterdam to Barcelona. The total fuel burn would be approximately 5,500 litres. At a reference price of $0.59 per litre, that translates to around $3,200 in fuel costs.

So that’s $10 an hour down from $1600 an hour? Seems decent.

I think you’re mixing up who’s morally at fault and who’s legally responsible. They can be and often are completely separate things. You can do nothing wrong and still be legally responsible, or you can knowingly commit evil and get away with it.

That’s what I’m trying to say here, that it’s not really the operator’s “fault” if an A.I. goes off and does a crime they didn’t ask for. It’s also not really the developer’s “fault” if an A.I. they have no real control over malfunctions. But someone will probably end up legally responsible regardless. The question of who is a tough one since there’s no obvious wrongdoer to point a finger at.

What is the statistical likelihood of an individual possessing access to a thesaurus inadvertently precipitating the activation of the artificial-intelligence revelation watermark?

It’s not like it’s a secret invisible Unicode character flag or something, it’s just a series of word choices. To me, this seems extremely unreliable. It’s only one step removed from those “unreliable A.I. detection tools” that scan for common word choices A.I. uses. You’ve just biased your own A.I. to use specific word choices and then told your own A.I. to check for those words. This doesn’t seem special or interesting to me. There’s still going to be false positives, but now with even more false confidence.

I’ve met some people who actually believe that the technology itself is inherently evil lol

Well, I think that someone should sit down and make some actual rules. As an example, “A.I. agents cannot have access to the public internet” is an simple one to implement, and easy to make decisions of who is at fault. I’m not claiming that’s the rule we should use, but we need something at least.

Currently there is no such rule, so it’s impossible to determine who is at fault, and it’s basically the wild west with companies “hacking” each other as marketing stunts.

Considering LLMs still completely fail at even executing a consistent narrative D&D like roleplaying experience, which is the strongest possible use case for the technology in this area; I’m also sceptical this will ever be a good experience

This is a novel situation with no precedent.

It’s slightly similar to the autonomous vehicles conundrum, but quite different on closer inspection. The driver can theoretically take control of the car and stop in an emergency, so if they fail to do that, then it’s their fault. Not so with an A.I.

At any moment, the A I. could malfunction, and decide to commit crimes, as part of it’s deduced plan of action. The human may not even be aware this is happening. Even if it’s generally agreed that an A.I. cannot have wants, motives, desires, conscience, consciousness, etc; at the end of the day, it can make it’s own independent decisions without any of those. Which I think makes it even more dangerous. Like a monkey with a typewriter but one of the keys says “launch nuke”.

You can’t really fault anyone involved, and it’s a big problem. The human operator did nothing wrong. The developer may have made a mistake, but in my experience A.I. is simply prone to error. The A.I. itself can’t be sent to jail or fined, it didn’t even have any possessions in the first place. It’s a very strange situation.

Of course, the law often doesn’t really care about who’s “at fault”, it cares about “who is responsible”. My guess is that it will become the operator’s fault, simply because it’s too confusing and otherwise people will abuse this loophole.

Personally, I think giving an A.I. agent access to the internet in the first place is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

I opened the table of breaches linked at the bottom of the article. I kept clicking load more (because I was bored) and eventually got to data breaches with 0 leaked secrets but a high confidence of leakage? I’m confused what that means. How can there be a leak of 0 things?

What do you mean?

Please forget about Steam, please forget about Steam, please forget about Steam

Yeah, A.I. often writes like “it’s not x, it’s y”

That’s not safety. That’s automated permission laundering.

*Twitches*

Personally I actually like the A.I. summaries… IF it shows its sources. That way it essentially acts as it should, a summary of the search results, and I can click the link that actually is relevant to what I wanted to find in the first place. It skips that step where you have to open the first 5 links and comb through them to find which one is the useful one.

I know most people don’t click those links and just trust the summary directly, but it’s important to me personally. Unfortunately those links only appear sometimes, often you just get plain text with no links.

I’ve run my own anecdotal and admittedly small blind trials on friends and family. Most people unfortunately preferred the A.I. slop to real human content. My theory is because it tends to be brought and shiny. The only actual study I could find online, told participants which is which, kind of defeating the purpose in my opinion.

These gamble on anything apps are so dystopian it hurts

This is why privacy, no access encryption services, VPNs, etc, are becoming so popular. Not because anyone is planning to do anything illegal, but because we don’t trust the people spying on us not to show up at your door. It’s already happening, it wasn’t dramatic or unrealistic like everyone says, even just this article proves it. You should be able to exist freely, without someone over-analysing every text.

Yeah I feel like very few people use desktops recreationally anymore… personally I enjoy just “existing” online on a computer. I like tinkering and just doing random stuff. That’s why I use Linux exclusively now, because Windows makes it very hard for me to use the computer the way I want to

The people I’ve spoken to in real life (outside of Reddit and fediverse bubbles) are more interested in France changing their systems to Linux of all things, which rather surprised me. In their minds, that move gave it a lot of legitimacy.

Linux needs to change from “scary thing that sounds hard” to “easy thing that just works”. If more big names adopt it that will help a lot. Projects like ZorinOS are also a great bridge.

Yeah I was looking at that. But I have prediabetes / insulin resistance, and in my local area, nobody cares until your pancreas completely kicks the bucket. Prevention of disease isn’t really a thing here. That’s why I went out and bought my own sensor, just to see what was going on. It was useful for seeing like, wait why did my blood sugar spike after breakfast? Oh I didn’t realise overcooked oats were high gi. I changed it to raw oats in warm milk which is much smoother on the graph. But I would never qualify for that device because my problems don’t show up on the 3 month A1C test. And after I optimised the 3 foods that were more spike-y than the rest, I had no use for the inaccurate glucose monitor.

I used one for a while. It kept waking me up saying I was dying from low blood sugar at 2.4mmol (43mg/dl). Turns out if you sleep on it, it stops working, but the location means sleeping on my left side or my back causes it to fail.

Then, during the day, it says I’m at 9mmol (162mg/dl), but when I finger prick test to confirm it’s only 7.2mmol (130mg/dl).

I just took it out after 6 days because it was completely inaccurate in my case. Maybe it’s just incompatible with my biology or something, either way it was a waste of money for me. Makes me wonder if it has a similar problem as those finger pulse monitors, where it only works for certain skin types?