Your body does a whole bunch of things in reaction to danger that don’t register as pain. Sweating, contracting pupils, releasing insuline…
You could get philosophical and say that these are pains of your body’s subsystems. And if microbes can feel pain then your body functions on the misery of billions of beings trapped inside of you. Not really something you can build a morality on.
I don’t think tending to damage is enough to prove pain.
Microbes detect and move away from danger. Plants detect danger and react to defend themselves. They also redirect resources to heal. Pain isn’t necessary for this.
Pain is for learning, so you avoid what caused the pain. Beings that don’t learn shouldn’t feel pain, it would just be a waste of energy. That’d only happen in evolutionary quirks (ie loss of capacity to learn after gaining pain). Nature is cruel (grasshoppers get their heads eaten during mating) but not just for the sake of it.
And of course, there’s humans that have a condition that makes them not feel pain. They still learn self preservation, and they have some reflexes too.
The article makes the comparison with a hurt dog. Dogs remember for life what hurt them. It’s very obvious they learn from pain.
The article isn’t about the technology. This “experiment” is pure techbro fantasy.
I use OldLander and old Reddit Redirect browser extensions
Which blacklist please?
True but you can do that for consoles too (PS5 not yet), and this issue isn’t what makes them not a full PC.
The fact that steam games are cross platform is because you buy a license. Very rarely a cd-rom would have Mac and Windows in one, but in that regard desktops were mostly like consoles not so long ago.
How would you do this without verification? How do you still allow gift tickets or buying for a friend?
Yeah ok but you’re not scrolling your wall for hours a day, right?
You sign NDAs with your testers and prototypers for that.
The problem is false negatives. Positive reports would still be reviewed before treatment.
AI already has less false negatives than humans. Both together is optimal but at some point you need to prioritize. A doctor looking at scans could in stead be treating a patient.
This is not about genAI. It’s cheap old technology. It’s been better than humans for a while now. The problem is legal risks.
Population is a statistical term which means “everything”. There is no “next 100”.
The 300 number is specifically about very big populations where you’re trying to measure something like an average of an unknown variable. It doesn’t apply to just anything statistics.
How big do you think the population of people with AI delusion is? Why can’t 19 be a representative sample? Why is that not enough to make statements like “after the user expresses romantic interest in the chatbot, the chatbot is 7.4x more likely to express romantic interest in the next three messages, and 3.9x more likely to claim or imply sentience in the next three messages.” when all 19 users expressed romantic interest?
That doesn’t make sense. What if your population is only 100?
They’re compiled rust programs.
You can fork today. It’ll work forever.
They were not competing before? Astral’s product is private package repo’s. Maybe that will get abandoned but the FOSS projects are safe.
40% of gamers: cause I didn’t build it those years ago