anotherman554

Openai certainly does, they are sending out emails to people using the AI for NSFW roleplay and warning them they'll be banned if they continue. They've also recently updated their API to make it harder to generate NSFW content.

Presumably the arbitration judgement against them can be enforced in plain old ordinary court.

Okay but as far as I know Geoffrey Hinton isn't an "A.I. Alignment Researcher." He was fairly dismissive about the risks of AI in his March 2023 interview and changed his mind by May 2023. I'm not sure that says much about the A.I. Alignment Researcher field.

A more cynical take would be they'll be spending the compute on more mundane engineering problems like making sure the AI doesn't say any naughty words, while calling it "Super Intelligence Alignment Research."

You are confused. In an undergraduate English literature class a student is not expected to come up with a novel interpretation of a well known book in order to pass.

Depending on the assignment you aren't necessarily expected to read anyone else's take on a book and you aren't expected to make sure you are saying something that hasn't been said before or anything like that.

You are simply expected to analyze the book and offer an interpretation.

And it's not like that's the only way to use the AI. With a few minutes of effort, I just got CHATGPT to write an essay using "post-colonial theory" to interpret the Wizard of Oz, which was pretty interesting.

A contract requires an agreement between two parties. I don't see how writing "the content on this blog is not for machine learning purposes" alone shows Google has agreed to your terms.

I'd say it would be good enough to pass an undergraduate class if it was expanded. Did you ever teach a class? I have not but as I understand it you'll have some students that aren't so good at writing, and some that are good. You don't want to discourage the weaker students from growing by giving them F's.

This isn't a field like engineering where there are objective right and wrong answers and anyone dies if you pass the students who are not so great at writing essays on literature.

I didn't ask GPT to describe any particular religion. My prompt was

"As a literary critic, describe how Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is a religious figure."

The divine being contained within I would think would match Buddhism pretty well.

The reference to relics is too vague to pin down to any religion, there's probably lots of examples of it in lots of religions. If I had to defend it off the top if my head I'd compare the Ruby slippers to the "holy moly" herb Athena gives Odysseus to defend him from Circe.

If anything I think GPT went wrong saying strength is one of the virtues associated with the Lion. It would be much easier to focus on courage and say he needs to learn to be like a brave apostle who says things like "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me:"

My point wasn't that this essay was particularly good, necessarily, only that it was was good enough for undergraduate work.

This isn't true and it's odd you believe it.

I just asked Chat GPT 4 to explain the religious significance of the Wizard of Oz as a literary critic. Here's some of what it gave me, it doesn't write anything like you claim it does:

"Moreover, Dorothy's companions -- the Scarecrow seeking a brain (wisdom), the Tin Man seeking a heart (love/compassion), and the Lion seeking courage (strength) -- symbolize spiritual virtues that are often extolled in religious texts. They embark on this quest together, mirroring the communal aspect of many religions.

The slippers (silver in the book, ruby in the film) can be viewed as sacred objects, or relics, that assist her in her journey, providing divine protection and eventually leading her to salvation (returning home).

Finally, the revelation that the Wizard is a mere mortal, and that Dorothy had the power to return home all along, imparts a spiritual lesson often found in religious narratives: the divine or the sacred is not external, but within us."

If I was a student I could have easily expanded on these concepts (with or without GPT) and turned in a good essay.

"And he found absolutely every single imaginable problem even down to the most hysterically unimportant detail."

The fact an inspection document is impressive to read doesn't mean it is accurate. If he blew you away with his ability to name 100 minor things, but missed a structural issue, you'd be screwed, and would have no way to know this until the structure starting cracking.

I can't read the full Boston Globe article due to the paywall and offer no opinion on the author's state of mind, but if you assume some small percent of outwardly functional people have "eccentric" personalities, it would not be surprising that you would occasionally hear about a college professor doing something eccentric. Why is any further explanation needed than "some humans have quirky personalities and do quirky things..."

I've never heard an investment expert use a term like "8% yearly upside risk" and suspect there's some errors in your thinking.

Look at it this way:

Imagine you have $200 dollars to invest. You can invest in country A or Country B. You know in a year one country will be up 10% and one will be up 1%. You don't know which country will be up the 10% and which will be up the 1%.

In a year, you need $205 dollars. Unless you like to live dangerously the rational thing to do is invest equally in both countries where you'll get a 6 dollar return. If you pick a single country you'll have a 50% chance of not having enough money.

Of course real world investing is more complicated, but my example demonstrates it's about probabilities of success at meeting your goals. Country A and country B have equal expected returns but investing in both decreases the probability of running out of money when you need it. Or it should, if we've modeled the expected returns of each country correctly.

"The difference between the two groups wasn't statistically significant."

Since 2018 U.S. stocks have returned 9.59% per year (I checked with Portfolio Visualizer) and international stocks have returns 1.83%. I don't see how that supports the idea that economies are very interconnected and investing outside the country can't produce a large return differential.

We also haven't had a official recession in the U.S. over that time period, I believe, so the topic of recession seems like a red herring.

To elaborate a little, I watched season 1 of married with children a while ago and it struck me as a more modern I love Lucy. I can't speak to later seasons.

The Munsters... well, I think I've seen a few episodes. I don't recall the wife (Lily) doing much in the episodes I watched, to be honest. I did see the recent Munsters movie, and Herman is both the cause and solution to their problems, Lily doesn't really do much from what I recall, if she has a comedic premise it's the ridiculousness of her falling for Herman.

In the context of investing there's also the problem of recency bias. You see investors arguing whether "the facts have changed" as to whether investors should invest outside the U.S., for example, when U.S. stocks have done well for a decade, and other investors accusing the U.S. only group of having recency bias.

Now show me the records from 300,000 years ago that you based your above post on.

Do explorers survive better than people who migrate to new locations with their families, or something?

Among gorillas and baboons, species in which males fight for reproductive opportunities feature males twice as big as females, while among pair- bonded gibbons that fight much less, males are just 10 percent bigger than females.

As I understand it men have greater strength because they are optimized to fight other men for reproductive opportunity. This doesn't increase their opportunities for survival since fighting other men can get you killed. It increases their opportunities to reproduce.

Our advantages in a hostile environmental come from building tools not physical strength. If physical strength was important a male human would not be 5 times weaker than a gorilla.

So no, I would not say men are "designed" to survive on an island better than women, or whatever. They are designed to fight other men in a zero sum game.

>The problem with the Switch is, why buy that when you can get a Steam Deck?

Have you used the Steam Deck?

It's a janky experience if you try to use it in the living room. For one thing, the Bluetooth chip is terrible. I realized this when I emulated Donkey Kong, was doing terribly, then unplugged it from my TV and started winning in handheld mode.

The issue isn't the TV introducing lag, I followed instruction online to install the driver for the Xbox controller Dongle and the difference was night and day.

This is just an emblematic example. I had to buy a wifi extender because the Steam Deck literally crash itself (It will actually report "out of battery" when the battery is full) when it has a bad wifi signal, due to some sort of hardware flaw.

Steam Deck is a very janky experience, which perhaps isn't a surprise when you realize Valve has the highest profits per employee in tech, they accomplish a lot with a small staff, but they have huge resource constraints when producing products like the Steam Deck.

In the TV Show "I Love Lucy", there's an episode called "Lucy Goes to the Hospital" which aired January 19, 1953. It depicts the father-to-be waiting in the hospital waiting room while Lucy gives birth to their son. The waiting room permits smoking and Lucy's husband smokes a cigarette nervously while waiting.

Women live longer than men on average so this line of thinking that men are optimized for survival, as opposed to women, is pretty darn silly. (Neither is more or less optimized.)

I don't think that's quite right... Married with Children is more like the husbands and the wives are constantly fighting, and its a battle of the sexes. (Granted I've not seen the whole show.) I Love Lucy also had that formula of men vs women, where Lucy and Ethel are plotting a prank or scheme against Richy and Fred or vice versa.

I don't think the Munsters is about the wife rescuing the husband. The humor is often about the family thinking they are normal, and the reaction they get from interacting with actual normal people. None of the characters are "wise" they all misunderstand the basic nature of what a normal family looks and acts like and fail to realize they are scaring normal people.

I don't watch many sitcoms these days. Someone else mention It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. If you really believe the media treats women as paragons of virtue there should be no female villains in sitcoms, right?

Velma and Clone High have women as bad as the men and female villains. Wednesday is pretty removed from it's Adams Family roots and is only occasionally a comedy, but also features at least one female villain.

The recent Beavis and Butthead made for TV movie had a subplot where a female politician is chasing Beavis and Butthead through the country and trying to murder them to cover up a scandal. That's certainly not treating women as "paragons of virtue."

>> What's wrong with therapy? You go to the doctor from time to time to take care of your physical health, why shouldn't you go to a therapist from time to time to take care of your mental health?

You presumably think there's a) an objective thing called "mental health" that can b) be effectively treated by talking to someone called a "therapist". But if either a or b is not correct, then there may be something wrong with going to therapy.

>> which makes sense, as men are designed for survival

Evolution doesn't only "design" a single sex for survival. (With the possible, arguable exception of some insect species.)

The difference is an AI generated work can infringe someone's copyright. Suppose I have Stable Diffusion draw Spider-man. While I can't get copyright on the drawing, that doesn't make the drawing public domain in the sense we usually use the term "public domain."

I don't think it was a questionable deal, at least without 20/20 hindsight. Twitter wasn't looking for a buyer, and Musk really, really wanted to buy it (until he didn't). If you have a highly motivated buyer and a not particularly motivated seller, you would expect the deal to be favorable to the seller. In order to convince Twitter owners to sell the company Musk had to essentially make them an offer so good they couldn't refuse. What other outcome would you expect?

If Musk lost in court, was ordered to go through with the deal, and then sabotaged the financing to try to get out of the deal, potentially a court could have thrown him in jail and said, "You are lying about not being able to go through with the financing, we find you in contempt of court and you are staying in jail until you obtain financing and close the deal." It's not very plausible that the world's richest man can't find financing on the deal.

Potentially a court could have also instead said, "Since you sabotaged the financing, you are in breach of contract. Twitter is worth 22 billion dollars today. You offered 44 billion dollars to buy it. You are hereby ordered to pay Twitter 22 billion dollars to make them whole." Presumably the court could have forced him to sell assets to pay up.

I don't think anyone knows for sure what would have happened in court but it seems he had a very weak case.

There was not a 1 billion dollar buyout option, the 1 billion dollar penalty was if he could not obtain financing, which he was perfectly capable of doing, or if a regulator blocked the deal, it wasn't something he had the right to use, just a penalty he would be forced to pay if he couldn't close the deal.

"They are using a large body of research, clinical experience, and shared knowledge of their peers."

If a psychiatrist prescribes a placebo instead of a kick to the groin they are "......using a large body of research, clinical experience, and shared knowledge of their peers" that show kicks to the groins are bad for patients, and placebos cause them to report improvements. You can defend anything with this sort of language, it's posturing.