> maybe two models should be developed and trained in conjunction that talk to each other, each with different functions and roles, because brains work better this way.
I mean, is that not essentially what a Mixture of Experts model is?
> I wonder if intuition is just a secondary neural net which is currently being added to the agents as we speak
Arguably, intuition is primary neural net, the only thing an LLM has without CoT, it just is spiky so humans only notice where it's below-average and just dismiss the rest as normal. Of course it's going to lag behind in some areas compared to others.
"A social construct" and "not real" are not the same thing. Money, laws, countries, gender, even civilization itself are all social constructs. More importantly, all forms of ownership are social constructs, and that doesn't provide any information as to whether we should respect them or not.
> Perhaps you need to look up what "real" actually means.
On the contrary; I think. Nearly every definition disagrees with the claims you're making. It's not a mere synonym of "concrete" or antonym of "abstract".
And regardless, the usage here was clearly in the context of GP's (false) dichotomy between "real" or "false concept", so obviously the definition you're trying to prescribe doesn't apply.
And by constructing that false dichotomy, you're failing to see the actual truth, which is that Intellectual Property is just a legal construct to turn ideas into Capital, with the goal of incentivizing its creation.
Nothing more and nothing less, and all of the normal debates about what should remain Capital and what should be The Commons apply.
> I know that not everyone has morality and ethics, but I didn't realize it was this bad.
This is a very disrespectful way to make a point about acting with integrity.
You should consider that maybe your views on what makes something ethical or moral are not universal -- and that coming to a discussion with the assumption that your position is the only valid one is not conducive to convincing others who disagree with you.
1 and 2 have had simple, proof-of-concept answers for more than a decade now:
> 1. Email sets of DNA strings to one or more online laboratories which offer DNA synthesis, peptide sequencing, and FedEx delivery. (Many labs currently offer this service, and some boast of 72-hour turnaround times.)
> 2. Find at least one human connected to the Internet who can be paid, blackmailed, or fooled by the right background story, into receiving FedExed vials and mixing them in a specified environment.
Those routes haven't gotten any more complicated for an AI to use in the intervening time.
And that's just one set of ideas. You can read the comments for dozens more creative ideas, and likely for responses to every objection you can think of. The key is that AI is getting better and better at problem solving, so anything a human can come up with in a few minutes is likely already within its reach.
---
> How is this materially different from today?
Because the should-be-uncontroversial assumption is that AI is going to keep getting better at every step of the process, and be able to do it faster and more at scale. Currently it might struggle, but with a thousand agents? It's already able to find novel math results and cybersecurity flaws. It would be incredibly naive to believe "social engineering" is somehow a unique and unsolvable problem for a sufficiently advanced AI.
For #1, I would seek a laboratory capable of _actually_ creating a _live virus_. That link to lesswrong, while interesting, does not actually indicate how and broadly reads as incredibly speculative.
While this is far out of my wheelhouse, I am not aware of a commercial venture doing actual organic creation or manipulation of material (I.e. capable of creating a modified strain of COVID). This broadly still seems in the nation-state level of lab.
But, just to get this goalpost out of the way, even _if_ such a venture exists, then would it not hold a bunch of doomsday cultists would already try to do this? This is what I’m getting at by my third question. What changes? Why don’t we see modified anthrax attacks in Palestine or Ukraine _today_?
I take no contention with the social engineering argument. I fully accept that LLMs, today and for a while yet, are capable of social engineering their way into anything. I likewise take no contention with the sheer amount of effort LLMs could wield in pursuit of this.
>And I say "talked," because the jagoffs at Microsoft REMOVED Remote Assistance from every version of Windows used by people who are likely to need it.
But also, you'll notice that giant banner on the linked page. It's because the people "most likely to need it" are also those most likely to fall victim to the increasing number of remote assistance scams.
It feels weird that everyone is talking like Google has banned adblocking in Chrome, when there's dozens of adblockers still in the extension store, including an updated version of uBO that works 90% the same.
Ad-blocking is a safety issue, but luckily you can still block them just fine.[1]
The only thing this heavily neuters is tracking blocking, but no one admits that because they know, deep down, that ~0% of the non-tech crowd cares, so it's not as good at stirring up outrage as being dishonest is.
[1] If anything gorhill is to blame for the safety issue, since he refused to update his extension in-place, so any distant relatives will have the adblockers you installed for them removed, instead of updating to the fully functional Mv3 version.
Don't try to deflect blame from the irredeemably evil fucks over at the Chrome team, who are sitting in their dark lair rubbing their hands together, scheming about how they can fuck the user over today. They are always to blame.
gorhill made the reasonable move of not updating in-place because the new version is strictly inferior and you don't just make a massive downgrade like that without the opportunity to explain it to people.
> This dynamic can be particularly challenging for some patients. “Lack of motivation and lack of follow-through are the most common symptoms of depression on the planet,” Marcucci-Morris said. “We wouldn’t tell a paraplegic, ‘Hey, walk down the hall in order to get your wheelchair.’”
This was something I really struggled with getting an ADHD diagnosis as adult. I needed an incredible amount of executive function (dozens of phone calls, navigating the mire of health insurance to figure out who I was allowed to go to, who would take me, being bounced around) to be allowed medication to treat my executive dysfunction. I recall wondering how someone less functional than I was was ever expected to get help.
Yup. With ADHD you constantly feel behind the 8-ball, forever in a deficit of agency. Worse when it's paired with anxiety so you never feel you are in control or make the right decision. Most of your time is spent worrying about what you didn't do and what you might have missed. Some things have higher priority to worry about so "small" things like calling that ADHD doctor fall by the wayside. Inevitably the chaos catches up where you forget an important event, forget to pay a bill, etc, and you're in panic emergency mode trying to fix it. So of course you forget to call that ADHD specialist. All day every day is like this.
Not sure that assertion holds; looking into the Amazon thing, it looks like the mechanism there was that it automated the "safe" parts of the job (notably walking), and greatly increased the rates at which workers were expected to perform the parts likely to result in injury/RSI, with less downtime between. That's not a flattering comparison to be making for any health system.
I mean, is that not essentially what a Mixture of Experts model is?
reply