What you have to understand is that the CEOs and upper management of these companies genuinely believe that human intelligence is just a predictive model. They are so divorced from humanity, from actual people, that they only trust each other, and even then, barely. Some psychologist posited that consciousness is in part predictive, then Curtis Yarvin latched onto that half-baked headline and wrote on it, and then these sick fucks all had the same ideas: That they each are always the smartest man in the room, that their genuinely shallow creativity is deeper than anyone else's, and that if the next guy who they consider almost as smart as themselves says it's because humans are just complex llm's then it must be true; that if they are barely smarter than this shittu technology, then all of humanity must be at or below it.
Garbagio
joined 11 months ago
Idk I remember a time when Sony was the least bad guy. Back when ps3 came out, you didn't need a subscription for online play, and you could actually browse the web (poorly, but, somebody tried. I remember when my laptop shit the bed and I used my ps3 to submit an assignment on blackboard in 2008). I thought that was pretty cool. Not that Sony was good; the profit motive was there, and the second they saw Xbox requiring a subscription for online play, you best believe they built plus overnight. But, there was a time when good people got good ideas snuck past bad company management I guess.
That's literally why I do
That's... That's exactly the opposite of what the article says π The article is literally about how the guy deploying the model is liable for the harm it causes, as would be the corpo's. It's so weird when people comment without reading π