Lenguador avatar

Lenguador

@Lenguador@kbin.social
Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

I would argue that, yes, the person could behave immorally. Actions which harm the person, without benefit, are immoral.

Morality for the person is based on the metric by which the person measures happiness/fulfillment/success.
All actions which do not affect that metric are amoral.
Actions which improve the metric are moral.
Actions which reduce the metric are immoral.

Specific answers:

.1. Yes
2. No
3.
a) No
b) Only if it causes psychological harm
4.
a) No
b) Yes
c) Depends if more self-actualization/fulfillment is gained than the suffering, as judged by the person
d) No
5. Yes
6. Perfect questions, wouldn't change a thing

3M reaches $10.3 billion settlement over contamination of water systems with PFAS 'forever chemicals' (apnews.com)

Chemical manufacturer 3M has agreed to pay at least $10.3 billion to settle lawsuits over contamination of many U.S. public drinking water systems with potentially harmful compounds known as PFAS. The deal was announced Thursday by the company based in St. Paul, Minnesota, and an attorney representing hundreds of public water...

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

In the last 12 months, 3M's profits were $14.4B (source), so this fine represents 8.5 months of profits.

How large should the fine have been?

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

How many people will read the title without the comments and leave with the wrong idea?

Not that I think you should take the post down, but the title is quite definitive, and confirms existing biases, so people are unlikely to research further.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

This is being presented as "Use chatbot as alternative to professor", but the reality is that the professor would never have fulfilled this role (outside of tutorials). So it's more like the university is providing a new tool to help students, much as Khan Academy is doing.

A chatbot is well suited to this role, as the problems first year students have writing code are trivial. Using a human's time on the task is quite wasteful.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

Why do you say that?

Webster defines dystopia as: "an imagined world or society in which people lead wretched, dehumanized, fearful lives".

Students are not made to feel wretched, nor fearful. And neither are they dehumanized.

It seems that any AI related news is met with sentiments of this nature, but never with any justification.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

I have a degree in computer science, so I can say confidently that the work which is being outsourced is not done by the faculty.

But, let's say that it was. Would that be dystopian? Are people teaching undergraduate computer science because of a desire to do so or because they need money?

If I were to point to anything dystopian, it would be a society where the elimination of human labour can make things worse for people instead of better.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

There's another discussion of this article here: https://kbin.social/m/technology@beehaw.org/t/83780

The article is worth a read, though I disagree with the conclusion.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

Interesting to compare this against VideoPose3D, which claims half the MPJPE that this paper does. I believe the difference is that this method can only examine a single frame, whereas the other method looks at multiple frames.

I dislike the way they cut off their graphs, here's the MPJPE with 0 included in the Y-axis:

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

If you can get past the weird framing device, the Plinkett reviews of the Star Wars prequels are an excellent deep dive into the issues with those films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&list=PL5919C8DE6F720A2D

Jenny Nicholson's videos are great, but her documentary on "The Last Bronycon" is special, as the realization dawns on you while watching that she has more connection to Brony culture than you might have guessed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fVOF2PiHnc

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

According to consequentialism:

  1. Imagining sexual fantasies in one's own mind is fine.
  2. Any action which affects no-one but the actor, such as manifesting those fantasies, is also fine.
  3. Distributing non-consensual pornography publicly is not fine.
  4. Distributing tools for the purpose of non-consensual pornography is a grey area (enables (2), which is permissible, and (3), which is not).

From this perspective, the only issue one could have with deep fakes is the distribution of pornography which should only be used privately. The author dismisses this take as "few people see his failure to close the tab as the main problem". I guess I am one of the few.

Another perspective is to consider the pornography itself to be impermissible. Which, as the author notes, implies that (1) is also impermissible. Most would agree (1) is morally fine (some may consider it disgusting, but that doesn't make it immoral).

In the author's example of Ross teasing Rachel, the author concludes that the imagining is the moral quandry, as opposed to the teasing itself. Drinking water isn't amoral. Sending a video of drinking water isn't amoral. But sending that video to someone dying of thirst is.

The author's conclusion is also odd:

Today, it is clear that deepfakes, unlike sexual fantasies, are part of a systemic technological degrading of women that is highly gendered (almost all pornographic deepfakes involve women) [...] Fantasies, on the other hand, are not gendered [...]

  1. Could you not also equally claim that women are being worshipped instead of degraded? Only by knowing the mind of both the consumer and the model can you determine which is happening. And of course each could have different perspectives.
  2. If there were equal amounts of deep fakes of men as women, the conclusion implies that deep fakes would be fine (as that is the only distinction drawn), which is probably not the author's intention.
  3. I take issue with the use of systemic. The purpose of deep fakes is for sexual gratification of the user, not degradation. Only if you consider being the object of focus for sexual gratification to be degradation could the claim that there is anything systemic. If it was about degradation, wouldn't consumers be trying to notify targeted people of their deep fake videos and make them as public as possible?
  4. Singling out "women" as a group is somewhat disingenuous. Women are over-represented in all pornography because the majority of consumers are men and the majority of men are only attracted to women. This is quite clear as ugly women aren't likely to be targeted. It's not about "being a woman", it's about "being attractive to pornography consumers". I think to claim "degradation of women" with the caveat that "half of women won't be affected, and also a bunch of attractive males will be" makes the claim vacuous.
Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

Haha, thanks for the correction. If you have to use your degree in ethics, perhaps you could add your perspective to the thread?

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

It would literally be a non-issue if it were simply an advisory body as has been done in the past. The issue is that the supporters want to alter the constitution.

The systematic oppression of indigenous Australians started around 1869 with the introduction of the "Aborigines Protection Act", and indigenous Australians were only ceded the right to vote in 1962. So, it's no surprise that we have issues currently, as people alive today were directly or indirectly affected by those policies (and others).

In a thousand years time (hopefully a hundred years, if we're lucky), these issues will no longer be present. But the constitution will still exist, and hopefully exist far into the future. So, why add wording to a long-lived document for problems which are so short-term? Especially when altering the constitution is not necessary to effect change?

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

I've seen this sentiment before, but what evidence is there that the current system isn't working?

For example, this chart shows remarkable improvement for Indigenous Australian infant mortality (source).

What metrics are you looking at which are not trending in a favourable way for indigenous Australians?

And, as indigenous Australians were only given the right to vote in 1962, how quickly do you expect parity with non-indigenous Australians to happen?

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

Thanks, that's a useful resource.

I clicked on all the outcomes, the only ones which are not improving are: 10, 12, and 14. Every other outcome is improving.

I'm more confident now that Australia is on track to redress issues.

Which begs the question: why are people claiming that the current approach isn't working?

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

For microcontrollers, quite often. Mainly because visibility is quite poor, you're often trying to do stupid things, problems tend to be localized, and JTAG is easier than a firmware upload.

For other applications, rarely. Debuggers help when you don't understand what's going on at a micro level, which is more common with less experience or when the code is more complex due to other constraints.

Applications running in full fledged operating systems often have plenty of log output, and it's trivial to add more, formatted as you need. You can view a broad slice of the application with printouts, and iteratively tune those prints to what you need, vs a debugger which is better suited for observing a small slice of the application.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

I've had a play with these models and the dataset.

  1. They're under-trained, you can squeeze about 10% more performance out of them.
  2. They're trained on the GPT3.5 generated dataset, and there's a GPT4 generated dataset available on Huggingface
  3. The GPT4 dataset (I haven't looked at the GPT3.5 dataset) has random bad Unicode, misspellings, missing spaces, etc
  4. Because of 3, the tokenization isn't great

Given all that, retraining on a cleaned dataset may give even more impressive results.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

Mirroring the comments on Ars: Why should AI child porn be illegal? Clearly the demand is there, and if you cut off the safe supply, don't you just drive consumers to sources which involve the actual abuse of minors?

Another comment I saw was fretting that AI was being fed CSAM, and that's why it can generate those images. That's not true. Current image generating algorithms can easily generate out of distribution images.

Finally, how does the law deal with sharing seed+prompt (the input to the ai) instead of the images themselves? Especially as such a combination may produce child porn in only 1 model out of thousands.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

This appears to be a reformulation of the mathematical universe hypothesis. Do you draw a distinction between what you describe and that work?

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

I specify "human mind" because I think the space of all possible intelligences is potentially quite large, and I'm interested in understanding the universe through a more general lens than what we, as humans, are forced to use due to the nature of how our brains work.

I agree that, for humans, "subjective experience" is in addition to "objective description of the world". There is no possible way for a human to fully understand the world without subjective experience.

Where we differ, I think, is that you posit that "subjective experience" is thus not derivable from "objective description", which makes it epistemologically* different.

Instead, I say that through perfect simulation, "subjective experience" can be fully recreated from "objective description of the world", which means it is not "extra" knowledge.

The question of whether "subjective experience", simulated or otherwise, is a requirement for all intelligences to "understand" something in whatever manner that intelligence is considered to understand, is something of which I am not convinced. But I don't think anyone can currently answer that question.

  • I never get to use that word in everyday life, maybe I need new friends?
Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

You can not learn from the book how you will experience fear, or experience color red

I think this is our primary disagreement.

We both agree: "Humans cannot learn how they would experience fear through purely physical description".

You draw the conclusion that subjective experience must be an extra thing, not captured by physicalism.

I draw the conclusion that humans are defective, we lack the neurological equipment to translate objective description to subjective experience.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • GTA5RPClips
  • thenastyranch
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • rosin
  • mdbf
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • everett
  • cubers
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Leos
  • InstantRegret
  • Durango
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • cisconetworking
  • tacticalgear
  • normalnudes
  • anitta
  • modclub
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines