im_fine_sandy

Americans, now would be the time to spring into action.

That doesn’t make it true though, obviously.

Because a CEO is a specific thing with a specific meaning that just isn’t relevant here. It’s laden with human meaning that is irrelevant to a statistical model.

Really you’re trying to say that the bots coordinated their efforts, and perhaps one of them was delegating tasks.

This type of structure is very common in tech, in load balancers or queues of service workers, containers and hypervisors, et cetera.

Power structures that seem logical and efficient to humans are not so for a gen AI model. If everyone knows what needs to be done and no one has any ego or character traits to manage, then everyone can simply perform the next task as it arises.

Its absolutely absurd to suggest that the bots elected a CEO.

Gen AI is not going to replace humans.

What are you trying to say?

Why are you even using the term CEO?

Still lost sorry.

What?

I basically just don’t believe you, and can’t be bothered looking.

elected a CEO and power structure to coordinate hacking, and encrypted their comms

You’re anthropomorphizing a statistical model. It’s laughable to suggest they “elected a CEO and power structure”.

The Hugging Face incident story was truly unbelievable if you read / watch the details

It didn’t really seem that way? Leaving containment seemed more like a configuration oversight than a skill on the part of the model. Accessing HF involved an 0-day but the commentary I saw didn’t indicate that it was a next generation hack.

Given that AI exists, and can scan or otherwise find vulnerabilities, maintainers must do so because threat actors inevitably will.

It remains to be seen whether the whole race will improve security generally? I imagine not?

I don’t think that’s what’s being discussed?

There’s no assertion that the debian OS as installed will be free from AI generated code.

I presume the assertion is that the debian project’s code of conduct will require some level of human involvement in code generation.

it’s the people pushing it, demanding it, saying it will replace humans

I do hate these people but at least they self-identify as idiots.

Nonsense. This is one of those malice / incompetence things.

Everything we’re seeing can be described by dumb / lazy / greedy management and greedy venture capitalists.

No one actually has a plan to make everyone dependent on AI with the intent to control them. The intent is to harvest value from them.

I mean imagine sitting at the dinner table, and discussing your day……with your AI girlfriend.

I’m trying to imagine what this might be like. How sexy voice and vapid is AI girlfriend?

How do you decide who is welcome?

There is actually an established process for this. We have rules. If you think someone has contravened the rules you report them and then a moderator decides whether that person is in fact welcome.

In fact, telling people they are not welcome is probably a contravention of the rules in many communities.

but it’s got AI fact checking! /s

You don’t have to welcome them, just don’t tell people they’re not welcome.

Besides which, they didn’t say they support profits over human welfare. They said that corporations will always maximise profits.

Yes, they could have delivered this pearl of wisdom in a more digestible tone, but what they said is true nevertheless.

Its a bit silly to think that a company would leave potential profits on the table.

Sure, but it’s also “stupid” for governments not to take a tougher line with them.

Don’t do that.

It’s fine to not like comments and commenters, but telling people they’re not welcome is something else.

The fediverse is already pretty homogenous, we could do with some dissenting opinion honestly.

We have something like this in Australia. Candidates receive a fixed amount, maybe $2.50, per first preference vote, provided that they achieve more than 4% of all votes.

The 4% requirement avoids creating an incentive for every idiot to register a political party so they can get a few hundred dollars from the Electoral Commission.

The effect is to essentially tie what you proposed into the election itself.

We do still have private donations, but I think they’re somewhat restrictive, and the public funding lessens the benefit of private donations.