Oh I can see that. Given OpenAI's push for multimodal engagement with GTP4o I fully expect the erotica they want to support would be more than just text.
I do agree with you there though, I can't think of any meaningful risks of text-only erotica unless you consider the psychological impact of the person choosing to engage with it.
Yep. Maybe there will be a net reduction in jobs but I can't help but feel like catastrophic 90% reductions involve "lump of labor"-type fallacies where we just imagine taking the given set of work being done and imagine how much of that will be handled via AI vs. humans in 5 or 10 years or whatever.
When the reality is that good AI tools will cause lots of projects to add video content where it wasn't before, or to spend more time creating high-quality video content. And this will undoubtedly involve some new labor.
>How many Reddit users knew they were agreeing in the future for Reddit to sell the content they wrote to make money for Reddit, not them?
Despite my low opinion of Redditors, I believe that on some level they are aware of the principle that if the product is free, then you are the product.
If you presented the regular users with the choice between "pay a subscription fee and opt out or let us use your data in these ways", the vast majority will end up choosing the latter and we all know it.
Are you seriously attributing public sector bureaucratic dysfunction to some sort of subversive public sector conservative operatives, or vague regulatory poison pills that you cannot actually point to here?
It seems a lot more intuitive to believe that you cannot just legislate that all government employees act selflessly towards the Greater Good, and the Homeless Industrial complex is a real thing that is not necessarily working in the interests of the public. Observing waste, fraud, and abuse and reflexively saying "this must be the fault of conservatives somehow" is just sorta sad.
>If "AI ethics" means being run by so-called rationalists and Effective Altruists then it has nothing to do with ethics or doing anything for the benefit of all humanity.
Many would disagree.
If you want a for-profit AI enterprise whose conception of ethics is dumping resources into an endless game of whack-a-mole to ensure that your product cannot be used in any embarrassing way by racists on 4chan, then the market is already going to provide you with several options.
I disagree that the “rationalist” and EA movements would make good decisions “for the benefit of humanity”, not that an open (and open source) AI development organisation working for the benefit of the people rather than capital/corporate or government interests would be a good idea.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to miss the point - the scam is that people who knew that demand for the asset was about to crater - because they were about to crater it, by shutting it down, extracted their investment knowing that others would not be able to.
The reddit moderators who cashed out were not the ones who were shutting down the service. They simply had insider information that allowed them to move first with this information. This was not a rugpull scenario.
>Andreessen’s newly espoused ideology did not spring up in a vacuum. Instead, it’s part of a broader movement that seeks to take all the guardrails off of technological development and push forward with “progress,” whatever the cost may be.
Pretty clear strawman starting at the third paragraph. I'm sure we could dig up many more.
When he's one of the biggest backers of the surveillance state and is advocating for even more of that.. yep. I do.
I'll raise a strawman of my own: pretty indicative to see one of the co-authors of the Fascist Manifesto listed in Andreessen's list of "patron saints".
> a broader movement that seeks to take all the guardrails off of technological development and push forward with “progress,” whatever the cost may be.
The manifesto starts with this as a defining motif. Growth is life, no-growth is death. Homeostasis be damned!
The quote given isn't a strawman though, it's a perfectly valid summary of just a few points from the actual manifesto:
Techno-Optimists believe that societies, like sharks, grow or die.
We believe growth is progress – leading to vitality, expansion of life, increasing knowledge, higher well being.
We agree with Paul Collier when he says, “Economic growth is not a cure-all, but lack of growth is a kill-all.”
...
Our enemy is corruption, regulatory capture, monopolies, cartels.
It's very clearly a distortion and not a valid summary of the manifest. Monopolies and captured regulators are not the same thing as "guardrails" in the authors summary.
You may benefit from reading about what straw man arguments are before commenting further.
I did read the manifesto, and while we can all benefit from more education, you, specifically, would benefit from learning what a straw man is.
Hint: All I have to do to prove the rebuttal relies on a straw man is to show that it mischaracterized or meaningfully distorts the ideas in the manifesto. I have done that.
