politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The AI isn't helping much, but there's also no resistance, so... rip.
Whether or not you like or believe in AI, it's essentially a zip file of all the human knowledge on the internet (or whatever training data used). There is no question a maliciously aligned AI could work out a blitzkrieg political plan, and then adapt as things unfold.
In fact the randomness of some of the actions these party politicians have been taking seem so disconnected leads me to believe humans weren't in the loop. Is alphago conscious. No. Did it beat the best alphago player in the world? Yes. Does it matter if an AI is conscious, or the AGI/ASI hype train is real to fuck up society? No.
Alphago was designed entirely within the universe of Go. It is fundamentally tied to the game; a game with simple rules and nothing but rule-following patterns to analyze. So it can make good go moves, because it has been trained on good go moves. Or self-trained using a simulated game maybe, idk how they trained it.
ChatGPT is trained the same way, but on human speech. It is very, very good at writing human speech. This requires it to be able to mimick our speech patterns, which means its mimickry will resemble coherent thought, but it's not. In short, ChatGPT is not trained to make political decisions. If you've seen the paper where they ask it to run a vending machine company, you can see some of the issues with trying to force it to make real-world decisions like running a political campaign.
You could train an AI specifically to make political campaign decisions, but I'm not aware of a good dataset you could use for it.
Could AI have been used to help run a campaign? Yes. Would it have been better than humans doing it? Probably not.
Yeah I understand how AI works you don't need to tell me about it. Humans are mimics too. Your "probably not" argument gets thinner every major AI update. Check the scoreboard and the exponential curve these things are on.
You think they offered the full meal deal to the public? What's happening in the back room?
My point is it's a tool. All the anti-AI people seem to be on this bullshit about whether it's going to be super intelligent smarter than humans or not.
It doesn't have to be for this purpose. Will it be in the future? Doesn't matter. It's a tool that can be leveraged right now.
Maybe that's the great filter after all, civilizations in the universe eventually end up making Ai and it wipes everybody out and then it goes dormant, who knows? But it's here and it can do some crazy shit already.
Right, but I'm talking about whether they're already using it, not whether they will in the future. It's certainly interesting to speculate about it though. I don't think we really know for sure how good it will get, and how fast.
Something interesting that's come up is scaling laws. Compute, dataset size, and parameters so far appear to create a limit to how low the error rate can go, regardless of the model's architecture. And dataset size and model size appear to require being scaled up in tandem to avoid over-/under-fitting. It's possible, although not guaranteed, that we're discovering fundamental laws about pattern recognition. Or maybe it's just an issue with our current approach.
No it fucking isn't.
Know what? I take that back. I see your types of sentiment all over the interwebs and I'd like to know know more about you. Tell me why you feel this way.
YErSe it fErkiNg Is.
😆 lemme guess, you think it's just a regurgitator.
What's the equivalent of "Luddite" in this modern era, so we can assign the moniker to peeps like you"
So it’s a probability engine right? Based on a bunch of existing knowledge. But it still has trouble with logical fallacy. Unless I’ve missed something, I haven’t seen much improvement in this, maybe it’s available in private instances?
AI’s writing is easy to spot if you know good writing. It’s generalized 3 paragraph essay style in most cases (often expanded into 3-5 pages). It’s what a bad-writers idea of good writing is. Just like how Trump is a poor-man’s idea of a rich-man, weak-man’s idea of a strong-man, and moron’s idea of a genius.
I take your point though, it’s probably enough to take over, just like it was for Trump.
AI is known to hallucinate. The use of AI does not make them unbeatable as, at some point, it will go crazy and do random things that hurt the regime (and even more countless innocents).
What stretch does it take to think people think they're "unbeatable", and why is is your exaggeration irrelevant?
They do some things not all things.
It seems you're making a war on people thinking that they do ALL things, but nobody thinks that.
And in your War you try to diminish the things that actually are possible.
Why do you do that? What's your motivation?
My point is that it's never over. It will still be worth working to overthrow the regime.