I don't think reasoning needs to be that complex. Addictive things are harmful, social media is design to be addictive (and is increasing). There is a correlation of higher addictiveness with harm. Children in particular are vulnerable for addictive things. So given the above, the expectation for social media which is highly addictive is that it would be highly harmful, unless there are clear reasons that it's not harmful.
The driver is probably more benign, openAI probably optimizes for longer conversations, i.e. engagement and what could be more engaging than thinking you've unlocked a hidden power with another being.
It's like the ultimate form of entertainment, personalized, participatory fiction that feels indistinguishable from reality. Whoever controls AI - controls the population.
There could be a system prompt which instructs the AI to claim that it is a conscioius person, sure. Is that the case specifically with OpenAI models that are collectively known as ChatGPT?
Microsoft said they were beefing up their expenditure in AI with and or around the announcement of layoffs.
So does this mean all the web designers, web developers and many other white collar jobs will now be done by one such professional using AI; so XYZ use to require ten people to get the job done now only one who uses AI gets the tasks done (tasks that those ten use to use software applications to complete). All the while a few hundred of Ruoming Pangs make more money then God in which their work further helps killing white collar jobs.
Is there anyone else concerned about this? I am federal worker indirectly yet per some news today not sure how much longer I will be and whether or not it wise to go look for another web design/developer/UX Researcher (think this is safest out of three as you are talking to ppl)position. There are throngs of others looking now to compete against including now competing against AI for less jobs.
I don't think that would solve the problem. Most people get their news from a specific biased source (or group of sources), not the government itself. And how that government message is explained varies by source.
Alberto Contador (2010, ban upheld in 2012) – Stripped of his 2010 Tour de France title due to clenbuterol use.
Jan Ullrich (2012) – Officially found guilty of doping in connection with Operation Puerto, though his offenses dated back to the 2000s.
Frank Schleck (2012) – Tested positive for a banned diuretic during the Tour de France.
Johan Bruyneel (2018) – Armstrong’s former team director was banned for life for his role in systematic doping.
Chris Froome (2017 case, cleared in 2018) – Found with high levels of salbutamol; later cleared by the UCI and WADA.
Jarlinson Pantano (2019) – Tested positive for EPO and received a four-year ban.
Nairo Quintana (2022) – Disqualified from the Tour de France for tramadol use, though it was not classified as a doping offense.
The concept is kind of analogous in many ways on if one should have solar power to hedge against power outages. I.e definitely can be worth it but will take up time and investment with long payback period.
To hedge against increasing electric utility prices, maybe. I installed solar recently and the cost of batteries to cover a decent power outage didn’t make sense to me. I just got a transfer switch and a portable propane generator instead. The battery tech / price is just not there yet IMO. And in case this isn’t well known, when there is a power outage and you don’t have battery backup, the solar generation shuts off — you’re not using solar AS the backup in most cases unless you have a very particular setup.
