I strongly doubt any AI agent would make that typo. And I'm really not sure why you trust the Verizon AI chatbot here.

> 1. There are all the tropes of AI becoming uncontrolled and destroying humanity. Writing bad headlines around AI "running amok" feeds this. We should not be talking about this because it's not actually a problem.

if humanity gets destroyed by AI obeying its instructions I'm sure everyone will be very relieved that we didn't pay any attention to fake made up problems like AI not obeying instructions, which of course never happens.

Are you suggesting we should embrace imprecise / false use of language because the vibes are right?

That seems a “part of the problem” move to me. If we can’t be bothered to get things right, how are we better than runamok AI?

> Are you suggesting we should embrace imprecise / false use of language because the vibes are right?

That's exactly how I read it. It seems like tribalism - "this thing/person is bad, and we can use whatever bad words we want to describe them that we want, because the only thing that matters is aligning people for or against me and what I see as bad".

I think it's both wrong and irrelevant. Which makes it hard for me to even argue against because, even if AI agents never violated user instructions, which they do plenty of times, I just don't see how it would reduce the danger. Plenty of humans who will tell it to kill everyone at the drop of a hat.

It's good, but like many explainers it discounts the repeated nonlinear layers. Just multiplying numbers (linear operations) could not make a system you could talk to.

The layers don’t have to be non-linear, but you need a non-linear activation function between them. People often overlook the importance of the network topology and the activation functions. The weights alone are not a complete description of the network.

Yep.

I've made the same experience with programming AI. It is very convenient, but convenient doesn't mean unlikely. The universe appears to have given us a convenient thing here.

Absolutely nobody is forcing retirement accounts to buy S&P.

Is there something up with your Twitter account?

Retirement accounts have to passively invest, but not in S&P500 specifically I think. I'm sure there will be passive funds that don't adapt the rules change.

edit: Google informs me that you can change the stock allocation in your 401k at any time.

What? Have you been replaced with a whole-sentence markov chain? https://x.com/FeepingCreature please look at your X account.

Oh, I wasn't sure if you were referring to the X link in the original post.

Yeah I don't know what's going on, they banned me for being a spambot or something. Then they unbanned me again, I got the email, but the site hasn't caught on it seems. If it's still banned in a few days I'm gonna remind them about the DSA again. Technical issues are not an excuse to get out from legal obligations.

It's fixed now.

Increasingly it seems like the fact that the game needs support for online components was invented in order to give it an expiry time.

Gamers simply don't have the impression that they're getting value from the "support," rather than getting shafted come end of life.

I think if you have a market where you don't license distribution for your software mostly because "hey, you can sell that for more, maybe", then changing the market so that everybody has to buy distribution should actually force the middleware price down, if anything, because they're no longer able to segment their market on it.

It's not like the market for middleware changes by this. I honestly don't see it having much of an effect on price. They're gonna take their middleware and go where exactly?

Judges are in fact allowed to notice that someone is obviously fucking with them.

Perhaps "they" are in a country with laws, and the laws now include restrictions on "however they want"?