People used to say the same thing about books. There was a lot of moral panic about children sitting inside reading rather than being outside and playing with their friends. Then it was comic books, then it was TV, then it was dungeons and dragons, then it was the internet, now it’s chatbots.

If there is some detrimental effect, I would like an explanation as to how it’s detrimental, rather than just a lot of hearsay.

Sheep are incredibly expensive to farm as well which is why the meat cost so much.

People think sheep are dumb but that isn’t true, they are anti-intelligent, they secretly hide vast intelligences that they use to come up with ingenious ways to injure or kill themselves. You can put goats in a field and fence them off and be reasonably confident that you will still have all of your goats when you come back in the morning.
Sheep on the other hand will use their psychic abilities to manifest some broken glass, and then step on it.

Then the supermarkets don’t want to pay very much for them and so now you’ve spent a lot of money looking after them and got very little in the way of return.

The only reason that sheep were traditionally found was because you could put them on pastures of land that was completely unsuitable for any other animal. But it’s the supermarket aren’t willing to pay a fair price then that doesn’t really count for anything.

If we have colonies on Mars I can’t see why we also wouldn’t have colonies on the moon if only to support ships going further out into the solar system. Refuelling on the moon makes much more sense than refuelling on earth.

The only way that isn’t the case is if we build a space elevator to bring resources up to spacecraft orbit, but if we’re at that point I still think we would build colonies on the moon just because, even if it’s just at the level of a Saudi Arabian vanity project.

Would we be able to see it from earth?

I’ve seen pictures of the earth from the moon and you can barely identify the continents. You definitely can’t see individual open cast mines.

Ok but walk it back a bit, why did they become homeless?

If somebody is completely 100% mentally healthy I can’t see how an AI can convince them to kill themselves any more than another person could convince them to kill themselves. Only vulnerable people join cults, because it’s difficult to pray on people who have proper defences.

I’m still not convinced that the AI isn’t just triggering some underlying mental condition that other people in their lives are just not aware of or not willing to accept.

Some people think that LLMs are true AGI or at least they have thoughts that run along those lines even if they can’t articulate it like that.

They tend to be people who aren’t particularly tech savvy and so they see this thing that seems to be pretty much a miracle of technology and believe that it truly is a super intelligence.

I’ve seen evolution simulators come up with some truly interesting behaviour, like finding shortcut glitches in Mario that no human has ever found, if I didn’t know how the program worked I suppose I might believe that there was some intelligence there.

I’d had a negative opinion of Asimov’s laws of robotics being used to control AI for most of my life, and LaMDA successfully persuaded me to change my opinion.

Then he’s an idiot.

Asimov’s laws of robotics aren’t some kind of model by which to control AI, there are plot device. They’re literally not supposed to work, if they did work it would be a very short book, so obviously we shouldn’t use them for controlling AI.

I don’t know any serious IT professional that has ever, at any point, ever forwarded the opinion that an AI (should we ever a create one, because there is an arguement that LLMs aren’t AI) should be ruled by a plot device from a book. Equally if we ever invent warp drive and find aliens I’m assuming we’re not going to be restricted to the prime directive.

I think the important point here is that just because the father is doing Google doesn’t necessarily mean that Google are at fault. People tend to feel that if an individual is suing a corporation for malfeasance the corporation is necessarily guilty. But reality doesn’t always run like that.

I can’t see any reason that Google would want to encourage more suicide so I have to assume that it’s just an unfortunate interaction of a mentally unsound mind and a product that frankly even its own creators don’t understand. This is highly unfortunate but I’m not certain where the crime was.

Yes people can have mental delusions and psychotic episodes; I’m not necessarily convinced that they are a separate unique condition simply because they were triggered by an AI versus anything else.

For one thing I’ve yet to hear a decent (or indeed any) explanation as to the mechanism by which AI triggers psychosis that is materially different from any other trigger. Most people who suffer from this condition can be triggered by literally anything, including mundane things such as seeing a red cars slightly more often than they believe they should, then they concoct this conspiracy about an evil cabal of red car owners.

A little bit alarmist I feel, after all if it was this easy to be affected by AI about half the population would be dead by now, so clearly it’s not that simple.

What does he actually do on a daily basis? Because we never hear from him for weeks at a time, which reinforces everyone’s fairly correct opinion that deputy prime minister is a pointless position that doesn’t need to exist. Then occasionally he decides he would like a little bit of limelight so he comes out on national television and says something stupid. Then labour bundle him back into the cupboard under the stairs again.

Has anyone ever seriously been pleased to see his face?

It wasn’t 60-year-olds putting up flags on lamp posts, it was idiots in there 20s

The collective of all human comments on the topic distilled together are greater than that of Andrew Tate. Simply because Andrew Tate goes out of his way to be an awful person. Clueless is better than evil.

Ot so secure that you can get away with having a insecure password.

It wasn’t that secret though was it? People knew about it, they just didn’t do anything about it.

He’ll back down like he always backs down. He doesn’t have the patience to be a true warlord, he’s the laziest man alive, he gets bored of things even when he’s not the one doing the work.

No needs a narrative to make America look bad. The Americans do it to themselves.

Is the article pay walled? I can read it in its entirety. I’d happily copy and paste it into the comments but it’s probably against the rules.

The goal is to be at war. The US is always at war. There is always an enemy to fight, if there is no convenient enemy to fight then you go to some random country, invade it, and thus create an enemy, who they proceed to then lose to.

For bonus points you should kill as many civilians as possible while claiming to be the liberators. Also you should, on the way out, backstab as many people that assisted you as possible.

I knew the Germans were a bunch of savages.