To the human race. The only reason we're not living miserable animal lives is because of technological progress. Wanting to slow that down means you are anti human.
So your think that AI systems that pose a significant risk to basic human rights at scale, should not be subject to oversight and regulation, because that would be anti-human?
The industrial revolution also created clean drinking-water systems, sewerage and wastewater treatment, basic sanitation and hygiene infrastructure, mass-produced vaccination, antibiotics, antisepsis and sterilization, anesthesia, obstetric and neonatal care technology, refrigeration and cold-chain logistics, food safety and industrial food processing, pasteurization, canning, mechanized agriculture, synthetic fertilizers, modern crop breeding and seed systems, electrification and power grids, hospital infrastructure engineering and medical imaging.
The industrial revolution created a few of those things, but the term refers to a specific period of economic development between (quoth Wikipedia) "c. 1760 . c. 1840", where the production of several classes of goods was mechanised. Not all technological development since the 18th century is the industrial revolution. To pick one example from your list: synthetic fertilisers are largely due to the Haber process iirc, which was a 20th-century invention.
Of course, new technology usually allows to do stuff that wasn't possible before, or maybe do stuff faster.
The point is how we use technology.
Without going to WW2 technology extremes, think about AI systems generating pictures of naked people from a regular picture. Regardless of the fact that this was already more or less possible using Photoshop or other tools (as I said before, technology is not always about new things, maybe it's about faster workflows), is there a clear net benefit to society when comparing pros and cons?
This doesn't mean that you should forbid all kinds of innovation, but if you're running a service (people keep interacting with you, they don't just buy stuff and use that at home) and a data-driven one at that (you know how people use your service because that's part of how you make money), some degree of responsibility should be expected.
If I buy a coconut and I use it to hurt someone, the original seller doesn't know it, but if I keep renting cars to hide bodies and the rental company has cameras inside the car as part of their business model, at some point the company could say "hey, what about this guy? What should we do about him?". And if for some reason it turns out that most customers rent cars for that reason, I would hope at some point someone would think "hey, how did we get to this situation? What should we do?".
Exactly this - and how chatGPT behaves too. After a few conversations with search enabled you figure this out, but they really ought to make the distinction clearer.
so your definition of "understand" is "able to develop the QC test (or explain tests already developed)"
I hate to break it to you, but the LLMs can already do all 3 tasks you outlined
It can be argued for all 3 actors in this example (the QC operator, the PhD chemist and the LLM) that they don't really "understand" anything and are iterating on pre-learned patterns in order to complete the tasks.
Even the ground-breaking chemist researcher developing a new test can be reduced to iterating on the memorized fundamentals of chemistry using a lot of compute (of the meat kind).
The mythical Understanding is just a form of "no true Scotsman"
Why stop there? Go all in: they should not run their open source totalitarian digital control nightmare codebase on closed source hardware, because that's the real issue!
A rational entity would want a functioning society, with working infrastructure and social systems, not a crumbling country on the verge of revolution. Guess what pays for that? Taxes.
Stop trying to rebrand selfishness as rationalism.
Do you voluntarily pay more than the minimum taxes required or are you selfish? And don't try to deflect the question by making spurious claims that wealthy individuals or corporations should be held to a higher standard. Give us a clear yes or no answer.
Look, I'm no economist, I don't know the exact numbers.
I can tell you however, that Bezos and his oligarch friends booking out a Venice that is sinking from climate change, while people suffer without health insurance and we still don't have high speed rail as built out as it needs to be is definitely not my understanding of fair.
And again, I say this as somebody that I also think should be taxed more. To live this well while so many people and projects need the resources more is unconscionable.
Leave the implementation details to the experts and elected officials. It's clear which direction we need to move in though.
So in other words you have no clue and are just making stuff up. If you want to donate more money to the government then go ahead, no one is stopping you.
That's not at all what I said and you know it. Shame on you for using such a bad-faith interpretation in your defense of the indefensible. The details of how we try to bend our capitalist system do not interest me because it is an inherently broken system. It is because of selfishness like yours that we will all die in the climate catastrophe.
Fair would be Bezos and his ilk getting the Jack Ma treatment, oligarch fortunes reclaimed by the people and used for solving the climate crisis. But we won't get fair. Meanwhile greedy little moneygrabbers argue over some little tax. Ridiculous.
Shame on you for making a bad faith comment you while refusing to be specific. It's horrifying that your would support anything done by communists. All communists should be killed.
