Removed by mod

You have, and let me be clear on this, absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

…said many things to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts, which it would take too long to repeat; but when they came to the letters, “This invention, O king,” said Theuth, “will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.”

But Thamus replied, “Most ingenious Theuth, one man has the ability to beget arts, but the ability to judge of their usefulness or harmfulness to their users belongs to another; and now you, who are the father of letters, have been led by your affection to ascribe to them a power the opposite of that which they really possess.

“For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.” (Phaedrus 274c-275b)

Why don’t you try getting a new argument, yours is a bit dated.

Your dialectic skills truly know no bounds.

Your dialectic skills truly know no bounds.

Edit: I responded to the wrong person.

Your examples of prohibition and mine are not the same. Mine were purposefully chosen because they are or were contentious, just like AI is now.

Your examples, on the other hand, outline situations where we were using something harmful that we did not realize at the time was harmful. Once that realization came to light, everyone agreed to stop. If you want to say this is the current situation with AI, then that’s coherent. This is my olive branch to you.

As for local models if you want to maintain that DSv4.1, GLM-5.3-f, M-3.1, or ther ilk are not near frontier-level. Then, I guess you are allowed to be wrong.

No problem. Any time!

Legislate AI away

Yes, because that has worked so well in the past for alcohol, cannabis, homosexuality, or nuclear proliferation.

existing open models that run on consumer-grade GPUs and are therefore orders of magnitude weaker and can’t be used to break down any systems.

This class of models is already perfectly capable of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in software, and is within spitting distance of the frontier.

Or penalize heavily any company developing a model that is subsequently used to invade a system.

Yeah, that case will be on the docket right behind U.S.A. vs Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon surely.

Do you seriously believe any of these are within the realm of possibility, or even believability?

I asked you to provide specifics about the future that AI is leading us towards, not a summary of the early 21st century. However, I understand how the question could have been confusing to one such as yourself who swims in the steam of prescience.

Or, if we must stick to metaphor, where is AI in this airplane?

Dollars to donuts says they don’t have a preferred outcome, or at least not anything that amounts to more than wishful thinking.

It’s crazy how many people have only reactionary opinions that are largely divorced from reality when it comes to humanity’s relationship with AI.

the very problematic ends AI is leading us towards anyway.

Please Mr. Time Traveller. Tell us about the future.