But the question is if its a net negative for society. People found real utility is leaded gasoline too, but we rightfully had to ban that

If transportation, housing, and food were paid for by giving private corporations and they demanded to incade our privacy as payment then i would be against that too actually

If you desired to inject heroin into your veins, that wouldnt mean we should decriminalize it

Thats a bit pedantic. Youre still arguing against an entity rather than addressing the argument.

If you prompted an LLM to make a PSA that people should brush their teeth, is it a fair to argue that brushing your teeth is bad because an LLM made the argument?

Let's call it "Ad machinam".

A literal form of "to the machine”: none of the rights that a person has.

Example usage:

“That’s not a rebuttal; it’s an argumentum ad machinam -- you’re rejecting it just because AI wrote it.”

And really when you think about it, all AI is is just the a statical recombination of (almost) everything that (almost) everyone has written.

So it's a kind of mechanical recombination of ideas.

When the roman republic collapsed, they were still at their upwards inflection point. Ceasar was still on a roll. They hadnt peaked yet. This feels more like when the empire was in the early stages of coming down from its peak.

I think the roman republic to empire transition doesnt have much to do with the trajectory of rome at all. Their institutions were still strong. With america, her institutional knowledge is being stripped apart. Thats hard to pull up from

> This feels more like when the empire was in the early stages of coming down from its peak

Based on which contemporaneous source? Personally, this feels like Cicero. Not Caligula.

Twotter as a data source is interesting. I think it gets over hyped because thats elons grift. But i cant deny that the real time info aspect of it is pretty valuable. But i definitely think that its not that much more valuable than the open internet from a context source perspective. Everything worthwhile on twitter will end up elsewhere with a bit of lag. And the stuff that wont is noise anyway

> That the product is locked down by design is a feature, not a limitation.

> Yes, this has the side effect of making them more money and allowing a walled garden to form

Come on now. This is so naive. Why not lock your computer down too? If its so proconsumerist

Has to be the cost. A reusable launch vehicle is such a ridiculously better value proposition that it creates a discrete evolution. Some things just arent feasible to do without them

> No, you tried to persuade it not to with a single instruction

Even persuade is too strong a word. These things dont have the motivation needed to enable persuation being a thing. Whay your client did was put one data point in the context that it will use to generate the next tokens from. If that one data point doesnt shift the context enough to make it produce an output that corresponds to that daya point, then it wont. Thats it, no sentience involved

Theres alot of talk about how the cops just misused the tool and its their fault not the AIs

Thats missing the point here. The point is that these tools provide crazy leverage, and thay can be good or bad. If used carefully it can definitely catch criminals faster, but when misused (or abused) they can let the authorities unjustly ruin lives faster

The question isnt whether AI is perfect or not. Its whether you trust the authorities with it. To use and abuse as they can. Think about the average cop. Think about the way Trump treats people. Think about the way israel keeps an ongoing genocide going. Think about the cases of police brutality that happen in the US, the cases of racial profiling. Think about ICE and their behavior, going around kidnapping and killing people. Do you want these people to have more leverage?