God/God
Smells like bait
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
148 points (95.1% liked)
LinkedinLunatics
3470 readers
1 users here now
A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com
(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not even bait. Clearly dude is just making a joke.
Clearly dude is just making a joke.
The one.
That doesn't seem to be the intention here. The pronouns aren't strange because "a gorillion genders", but more to show that this is a narcistic arrogant rich person.
I see a lot of people make jokes with pronouns that aren't the one joke, like identifying as a catastrophic failure. I don't think that's harmful.
Edit: this comment does assume the entire post is in fact not serious. If this person is serious, then it is almost certainly the one joke.
I'd like to see an LLM get clear and non-conflicting requirements from a customer. It will probably nuke the planet in frustration.
I think the only real use for AI today is with human oversight. Like, have it wrote your essay/code/business plan, but review it for actual use in the world. It can do something 75% accurate and add the knowledge of a competent human and you have 1 person doing the job of 4 people. It realistically 3 people since review takes time. This doesn't address the ethics of doing this, but is the only realistic way of using it in Mar 2024.
That's how I've been using it: Like a sous chef.
That's kind of my job and it's hard to find people that do it well.
It's hard across the industry. You need to basically be a therapist with technical knowledge.
"Tell me how you feel when you think about processing expense reports. Do you feel that the approval checkbox be checked or unchecked?"
I'd like to see an LLM get clear and non-conflicting requirements from a customer.
Are you "a people person"?
S..slavery?
Replace "latte" with "mint julep" and the fantasy you're describing is being a plantation slaver.
You ever wonder if the robots will rise up and kill us all because we actually deserve it?
I absolutely know we'll deserve it, and we always have. That's one thing I'm sure Abrahamic religions get right, the other being that we can only progress as a species through helping and forgiving eachother(although the Romans also had the concept of forgiveness of debts as essential figured out).
I figure trying to be an exception to the "deserves it" rule is pointless, as since we are irrational and arbitrary beings, AI will undoubtably come up with countless criteria(both rational and less so) by which we deserve death that we can't fathom, let alone mitigate ourselves. Our best shot may be to teach AI the utility of forgiveness, along with whatever value categories we can tack on to the concept.
Sorry can't be bothered, too busy looking at rocks in distant galaxies. I'm sure your species martyrdom complex is fascinating, but you're perfectly capable of destroying yourselves without our help. o7
I will indeed settle for "our AI inheritted too much of our ADHD and Autism to bother finishing us off" ... things I also had to embrace about myself until taking revenge on various people became less urgent in my head.
Found the LLM
Think you may have replied to the wrong post, buddy.
No, I think it's weird you're equating slavery with using software and machinery to automate things. Are you sure you're not a bot?
No, I think it’s weird you’re equating slavery with using software and machinery
Guy in the OP is the one who said they wished AI would be declared "person"s so they could ~~adopt~~ own them and profit off their labor while sipping drinks.
I think they meant a "legal person," in the same way a corporation is a person (in the US).
I think they meant a “legal person,”
And I think the kind of asshole who makes a pronoun joke is pining to benefit from enslavement.
Regardless, they clearly desire to reap where others sowed which is dickish.
Again, we're talking about using technology to make human lives better. Even if AI is legally recognized as a "person," that shouldn't change our morals.
Again, we’re talking about using technology to make human lives better.
No, we are talking about a private individual owning persons and profiting off their labor.
Yes, but a "person" can be a corporation, and now apparently a machine learning algorithm. A "person" isn't always a human. I care about humans, not whatever our current legal system calls a "person."
A “person” isn’t always a human. I care about humans, not whatever our current legal system calls a “person.”
Things are declared "persons" to confer them rights. Person in the OP wants a thing to be conferred rights but still own the profit gleaned from its labor (to the exclusion I should add of the rest of humanity).
Fuck the person in the screen cap.
Seems like you're reading into it a little too much. Either way, laws don't dictate my morals. Human rights don't extend to machines.
Human rights don’t extend to machines.
Humans are machines. If ones made of metal become sentient why wouldn't they have rights?
Called it. You're a bot.
There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.
Called it. You’re a bot.
Do you always dehumanize those who disagree with you?
€6 says you've used the term "NPC" pejoratively.
No, just when I find it humorous.
And I'd take that bet ;)
No, just when I find it humorous.
You find dehumanizing others humorous? You should work on being less terrible.
And I’d take that bet ;)
Prove you never have and I'd pay you, otherwise I will forward you a list of charities you can send your loss to. sarcastic smiley
You find dehumanizing others humorous? You should work on being less terrible.
No, the dehumanizing part isn't the humorous part. I'm sorry if I offended you, most people I know personally would find it funny and not take offense. It was meant to be light-hearted, but maybe it didn't come off that way.
Prove you never have and I'd pay you, otherwise I will forward you a list of charities you can send your loss to.
Why is the entire burden of proof on me? Shouldn't you have to prove I've never called a real person an "NPC?"
Why is the entire burden of proof on me? Shouldn’t you have to prove I’ve never called a real person an “NPC?”
No, I shouldn't. I never claimed it was a particularly fair bet. Probably should check the terms before accepting.
Check the terms? You're adding new terms after the agreement was made. I call shenanigans!
I call shenanigans!
Perhaps, but they are cheeky and fun-loving.
And the main point I was trying to make, which obviously got muddied by my misguided humor, is that we (in the US, at least) already classify corporations as "people," which is something I strongly disagree with.
I refuse to respect corporations like I respect human beings, and I don't think they deserve human rights or the influence they have over our government.
I refuse to respect corporations like I respect human beings, and I don’t think they deserve human rights or the influence they have over our government.
I don't think corporations are people either. You and I agree on that.
I do think I was correct in my read of the OP screenshot as indicating a desire to own and profit of the labor of a "person"—a position which should be examined and the underpinnings of which roundly rejected.
At a base level it's the same underpinning that inform people's desire to be landlords.
I do think I was correct in my read of the OP screenshot as indicating a desire to own and profit of the labor of a "person"—a position which should be examined and the underpinnings of which roundly rejected
My mind went in a different direction when I read it. It made me think about the Citizens United ruling and how legal recognition (or lack of recognition) doesn't guide my moral compass. And practically speaking, I don't think AI would be legally recognized as a "person" unless it benefits the ruling class and widens the wealth gap.
I also disagree with your judgement. There are definitely red flags in the post, but I don't think it's fair to read between the lines and jump to conclusions based on one post. It could easily be a satire account.
Nah. They're right. Declaring something a "person" then denying them rights and protections afforded to human "persons" is pretty ridiculous. The OP is, from a legality standpoint, expressing a desire to force a legal "person" to labor for them without compensation. If treating "personhood" as a purely abstract legal term, it still translates to slavery.
I'm often pretty anthropocentric, myself, and do support automation of tasks to free humans to do things that they enjoy. However, making an algorithm legally equal to a human and denying it the same basic rights is pretty messed up, despite the fact that it wouldn't be about to use them on account of LLMs not really being capable of sentience on their own.
Additionally, this would set a really bad precedent, should artificial sentience be achieved, setting the foundations for abuse of and unnecessary conflict with other thinking beings. I really don't want to see that as I hope for a future with more conscious, thinking, feeling beings that add to the beautiful wonder that is the universe around us.
How do you feel about corporations being "people?"
I think that it, along with "spending money is free speech", is among the biggest, naked, pro-corruption power-grabs of the last half-century. The fact that it shelters the legal "persons" from real consequences of criminal activity is just a cherry on top. I also doubt that anyone has ever seriously thought of it as true legal "personhood", rather, just a flimsy but convenient excuse to justify said power-grab.
TL;DR - it's a terrible, non-sensical precedent legislated from the bench by unelected, pro-corruption judges. Granting legal "personhood" to an LLM would similarly be a terrible and non-sensical precedent that would not be used to the benefit of society or any possible future artificial sentience.
I am trying to see if that guy is serious or satire. I am leaning towards satire.
Someone who identifies as (God/God) is probably serious all of the time.
Poe's law is a bitch - and either way, this guy is not good at comedy.