HN user

JimTheMan

661 karma
Posts0
Comments267
View on HN
No posts found.

"Are AIs conscious? Do we have responsibilities toward them?"

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but if an AI were to have a first person perspective, would that necessarily change how we operate? There's not an option for me to pick here as conscious, but no further consideration warranted.

There are plenty of arguably conscious beings we already subjucate in one way or another. People for labour, animals as livestock, dogs as companions and so on.

I think people think that if AI were conscious that would materially change how we interact with them and how we use them for society. But I have my doubts about that, given our nature.

I think humans ascribe consciousness to themselves and others, and this is a useful trait in understanding how another being is going to act. Perhaps I have answered my own question. We are concerned with how a conscious AI may act if it has a sense of independence?

I didn't find that to the case in Australia, as someone who had L's for far longer than is standard.

Mostly it meant that people gave you a wide berth, as learner drivers are unpredictable at times. So basically, what the sign intends.

It surprises me to hear that about NZ? As I think of NZ, as our friendlier cousin.

Just goes to show that our experiences are always hyperlocalised, and it's hard to actually make generalisations without actual data.

That's a good question.

I think there's an assumption that current costs, which are high, will remain high.

Most of that seems to be going to model development, rather than model operation, which is the product we all use.

To me the most likely option will be, that development slows and prices rise somewhat, as they can't keep burning cash forever. But I'm willing to pay a little bit more, considering how powerful the tool is.

It assumes that people will be meek when they are oppressed. That there won't be a counter movement at all to the rising inequality?

You can already see it now, with the rise of populism and to a lesser extent socialism.

A non-consumption economy will only happen if the masses can be somehow oppressed, or pursuaded to bliss out peacefully.. In the long run of history, I'm going to bet on the masses pulling through.

I highly highly doubt that by consenting to be an organ donor you are consenting to this.

Unless you live in some incredibly lawless country?

Organ donation is so very sensitive, and those who use the service are so aware of the sensitivities I think that you'd be insane to have such a reaction to this media piece.

In fact, I'll go one further. I have serious doubts you were ever an organ donor at all.

We see ourselves as underpaid, and tech workers as overpaid. (For right or wrong)

But you're completely right, Capital has done amazing job of pulling the wool over our eyes hasn't it.

Virtue signalling, not at all.

I work as an regular engineer in construction and I have a very cushy job compared to the boots on the ground working in the mud. I am conveying what I and everyone else thinks about tech working conditions.

Also not against unions, I have to work with unions in my day to day.

Yeah, when people choose to write an article about 'how bad they have it', don't expect sympathy from anyone else if you 'don't have it that bad'. Christ, you all get paid 3 x plus the median salary... Go work a job with better conditions that pays less! Or use your incredible market power to move to a place that does have better conditions (which you all have seem to done anyway!)

Unionise for gods sake, but jeez it would help if some of you had to scrape a little in your past prior.

These articles about work conditions in tech feel profoundly out of touch with the rest of the world. It's like reading a gazette from Mary Antoinette talking about how tough her life was (pre-revolution..)

The rest of the world outside of tech, looks at tech and sees a bunch of very overpaid developers with quite cushy perks...

Like sure, it would be great to unionise... But if tech workers don't acknowledge their privelege, they shouldn't be shocked when no-one else turnsout to support them.

Historically bombing civilians has always galvanised the public against the enemy more than it 'demoralises' them.

For instance the bombing of England during WW2 didn't break their will to fight. The fire bombing of 95% of Japan's cities didn't diminish their will to fight either.

And let's not forget the vietnam war... didn't seem to be effective for the US...

Bombing civilians rarely achieves any war goals and may actually have the opposite affect.

The word mate can be used both positively and negatively, but is predominately used positively. One of Australia's core values is 'mateship'.

You will be surprised to find that Champ is the word Aussies will use when unimpressed. For instance, "You alright there Champ?" means " You absolute idiot, what in the hell are you thinking?"

There's an amusing short story from Douglas Adams, who visited Australia back in the day where 'No worries' featured prominently.

https://douglasadams.com/dna/980707-08-a.html

"and get this, this is a very important and significant part of what happens to you on Hayman Island - staff who don't just say "No worries" when you thank them for topping up your champagne glass, they actually say "No worries at all". They truly and sincerely want you, specifically you, not just any old fat git lying around in a sun hat, but you personally, to feel that there is nothing in this best of all possible worlds that you have come to for you to concern yourself about in any way at all. Really. Really. We don't even despise you. Really. No worries at all."