Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, speaks at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)
deleted
Worldcoin, founded by US tech entrepreneur Sam Altman, offers free crypto tokens to people who agree to have their eyeballs scanned.
What a perfect sentence to sum up 2023 with.
Mr Altman, who founded Open AI which built chat bot ChatGPT, says he hopes the initiative will help confirm if someone is a human or a robot.
That last line kinda creeps me out.
deleted
Yeah that’s most most sci-fi dystopian article I’ve read in a while.
The line where one of the people waiting to get their eyes scanned is well eye opening " I don’t care what they do with the data, I just want the money", this is why they want us poor, so we need money so badly that we will impatiently hand over everything that makes us.
But we already happily hand over our DNA genome to private corporations, so what’s an eye scan gonna do…
deleted
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That’s why they just removed the military limitations in their terms of service I guess…
I also want to sell my shit for every purpose but take zero responsibility for consequences.
Considering what we’ve decided to call AI can’t actually make decisions, that’s a no-brainer.
AI term means humans are no brainers
Shouldn’t, but there’s absolutely nothing stopping it, and lazy tech companies absolutely will. I mean we live in a world where Boeing built a plane that couldn’t fly straight so they tried to fix it with software. The tech will be abused so long as people are greedy.
So long as people are rewarded for being greedy. Greedy and awful people will always exist, but the issue is in allowing them to control how things are run.
More than just that, they’re shielded from repercussions. The execs involved with ignoring all the safety concerns should be in jail right now for manslaughter. They knew better and gambled with other people’s lives.
They fixed it with software and then charged extra for the software safety feature. It wasn’t until the planes started falling out of the sky that they decided they would gracefully offer it for free.
Has anyone checked on the sister?
OpenAI went from interesting to horrifying so quickly, I just can’t look.
deleted
People still like Steve Jobs.
Ugh. There’s time yet.
OpenAI went from an interesting and insightful company to a horrible and a weird one in a very little time.
People only thought it was the former before they actually learned anything about them. They were always this way.
Remember when they were saying GPT-2 was too dangerous to release because people might use it to create fake news or articles about topics people commonly Google?
Hah, good times.
Agreed, but also one doomsday-prepping capitalist shouldn’t be making AI decisions. If only there was some kind of board that would provide safeguards that ensured AI was developed for the benefit of humanity rather than profit…
AI shouldn’t make any decisions
I am sure Zergerberg is also claiming that they are not making any life-or-death decisions. Lets see you in a couple years when the military gets involved with your shit. Oh wait they already did but I guess they will just use AI to improve soldiers’ canteen experience.
So just like shitty biased algorithms shouldn’t be making life changing decisions on folks’ employability, loan approvals, which areas get more/tougher policing, etc. I like stating obvious things, too. A robot pulling the trigger isn’t the only “life-or-death” choice that will be (is!) automated.
Ummm…no fucking shit. Who was thinking that was a good idea?
probably about half of the executives this guy talks to
is exactly this AI will do in a near future (not dystopia)
But it should drive cars? Operate strike drones? Manage infrastructure like power grids and the water supply? Forecast tsunamis?
Too little too late, Sam. 
Yes on everything but drone strikes.
A computer would be better than humans in those scenarios. Especially driving cars, which humans are absolutely awful at.
So if it looks like it’s going to crash, should it automatically turn off and go “Lol good luck” to the driver now suddenly in charge of the life-and-death situation?
I’m not sure why you think that’s how they would work.
Well it’s simple, who do you think should make the life or death decision?
The computer, of course.
A properly designed autonomous vehicle would be polling data from hundreds of sensors hundreds/thousands of times per second. A human’s reaction speed is 0.2 seconds, which is a hell of a long time in a crash scenario.
It has a way better chance of a ‘life’ outcome than a human who’s either unaware of the potential crash, or is in fight or flight mode and making (likely wrong) reactions based on instinct.
Again, humans are absolutely terrible at operating giant hunks of metal that go fast. If every car on the road was autonomous, then crashes would be extremely rare.
Are there any pedestrians in your perfectly flowing grid?
Again, a computer can react faster than a human can, which means the car can detect a human and start reacting before a human even notices the pedestrian.
deleted
Teslas aren’t self driving cars.
deleted
Well, yes. Elon Musk is a liar. Teslas are by no means fully autonomous vehicles.
deleted
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly. Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric. This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as “true”, “pure”, “genuine”, “authentic”, “real”, etc. Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an “ad hoc rescue” of a refuted generalization attempt.
And yet it persuades people to choose for it.
