None of these examples got away with it, or even acheived any of their stated goals. If terrorism actually worked, it would be a lot scarier.
Also fortunately most political extremists don't want to kill just random people. Weapons of mass destruction don't discriminate, making them poor choices.
I'm not getting your point as it relates to the discussion here.
But for some goals, terrorism definitely works. Look at the US South after the Civil War. White terrorism worked for more than a century, from thousands of individual lynchings up through mass events like the Tulsa Massacre and Wilmington Coup. Or look at the number of shootings that involve misogyny, which is the enforcement mechanism for patriarchy. In both cases, violence is used to create fear to keep a population subordinate.
It also can work very well against occupying forces. Afghanistan, for example. Or if Russia takes Kiev, we'll surely see how well it works against Russian soldiers.
And it works very well to get attention and heighten tensions. Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks were a big success for them on both counts. If you're in the "immanentize the eschaton" class of kook, which these days includes a lot of people from the far left to the far right, the heightened tensions are their own reward.
And even if it didn't work, that's not really the question. The question is whether somebody being crazy enough to think it will is enough to prevent them from succeeding. I'm saying the two aren't mutually exclusive. Aum Shinrikyo comes to mind here. As, in another way, does Russia. Would Putin using nuclear weapons ever keep him in power? I doubt it. But might he do it anyhow on one theory or another? Nobody can rule that out.
I love the idea we will soon have western and eastern open source projects. Even if internet isn't bifurcated, both sides will be too paranoid to install software from the other side. All software projects will have to pedantically vet every line of a commit, photo ID every contributor, to avoid subtle bugs intentionally committed and sent to millions.
Why stop at countries? How hard would it be to use ML to detect if the user has the wrong politics? Why stop at just deleting files? How about downloading as much illegal content as possible, sending embarrassing emails, etc? There's so many possibilities here.
Small NNs are very fast. This particular NN only has 4 inputs, 2 hidden, and 2 outputs. That's what, 12 multiplications per pass? If you can compress your input down to a few variables you don't need much computation. For an FPS you could probably get away with player coordinates and direction.
I've read that some game devs tried more advanced AIs in FPS games. And the players hated it because they thought it was cheating when it snuck up on them.
Just take the last thing in this article. It links to an obscure blog by some crazy person that hasn't updated in 4 years.
What's the point of this? Cruelly mocking some mentally ill person's posts from years ago, as proof that "the future is unpredictable"?
Or claiming brexit is economically worse than covid. Massively disrupting the world economy for 2 years is less bad than some regulatory changes in a single country? "A crewed moonbase by 2031"?
The UK is not under any real level of restriction, and the (own-currency) debt taken on is not of a form that would harm growth. Compared to its peers the UK is doing abysmally; the distinguishing factor is Brexit.
So far as I have heard, the UK went way harder into lockdowns and other measures than the US. And from what I saw, what happened to the US was insane. Everything was closed down for months (or longer depending on the industry.) Supply chains were incredibly disrupted. The government went deeply into debt and inflation is skyrocketting. There are still shortages of many things for the forseeable future. Unprecedented numbers of people have lost their jobs.
I literally can not imagine thinking this is comparable to any other economic event, since the world wars or great depression anyway.
The UK did lockdown somewhat harder than the US (but not some US states), but that mostly only affected hospitality and entertainment, and home-based activities made up for that to an extent. The debt is inconsequential (for now), and inflation is still nothing compared to the '70s.
US GDP is around 2.5% below pre-covid trend; the UK is far behind that. UK exporters (and importers) have taken a huge hit from the new trade barriers.
Predicting the supreme court would become more conservative during a conservative presidency and senate was not a hard prediction. Ginsberg was known to be in poor health, but I guess you could count that as a successful prediction.
But the other details are all wrong. There hasn't been a Protestant on the supreme court in awhile, let alone a fundamentalist.
Catholic fundamentalism exists, and is remarkably similar to protestant fundamentalism despite having theoretically different theological arguments - they're the ones arguing that Pope Francis is wrong about things, and more generally they are the ones who disagree with the changes of Vatican II.
Are we seriously going to criticize a tab completion engine because it doesn't perfectly calculate what the phases of the moon are? Can you? I'm amazed it even knows what that means and has a vague idea of what such a calculation should look like, even if it fails.
>I seriously doubt that no one raised the concerns that are raised today during the development of Copilot.
I would be shocked if they did. The common wisdom in the ML community is that training data is fair use. GPT has been operating for 2-3 years now with no legal issues, and this is just a different fine tune of GPT3.
If you do get sued, the Copilot page is written in a way that would make Github legally responsible for it, not you. "Just like with a compiler, the output of your use of GitHub Copilot belongs to you."
Yeah, right... This isn't going to fly in court any more than if the Pirate Bay page was written in a way that says that it's solely responsible for what you do with the magnet links that they share.
All of these issues have existed since GPT-2, maybe earlier. I remember the AI dungeon guys narrowly avoided a lawsuit from training on copyrighted novels. I find it amusing that the tech community was very pro GPT, but anti-copilot. Now that it affects them personally. Especially ironic because this place is usually very skeptical of copyright matters.
All AIs are trained on copyrighted data scraped from the internet. What you guys want effectively amounts to making most AI illegal. At least outside of big tech companies with large private datasets. Is that the world you prefer to live in?
How do you know it's "just a code search engine"? Or "not AI" or "not learning and producing new things", or all the other claims people are making about it? All of these are essentially untestable statements.
It has memorized one thing. That doesn't prove it's not intelligent. If anything it's the other way around, we would expect an intelligent being to be capable of memorization.
All I can think of is the Turing test and the AI effect. Eventually we will have an AI that is capable of writing code indistinguishable from a human, and people will STILL say it's "not AI" and "just a code search engine", etc. Obviously this isn't there yet, but it's clearly getting closer.
Also fortunately most political extremists don't want to kill just random people. Weapons of mass destruction don't discriminate, making them poor choices.