The root cause of this issue that they identify, is 100% the kind of AI that they’ll build for this situation.
Old mate wants to use it to keep people on their best behaviour. The kind of subjective wording that whatever he doesn’t like, is the exact reason people lie in court.
Power to that thought process through systemising it, legitimising it, is exactly part of the problem.
What’s that American who said lies about the eating cats then justifying it by saying “I’d lie if it got the American public to wake up”. Let me get the quote…
If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.
Yep. It’s not infallible, it’s intentional. Intent goes into the creation of systems and implementations. These are the kind of people that want these systems. They’re justified in their own minds.
So to close the loop you linked that article and it’s point was:
More than half of wrongful convictions can be traced to witnesses who lied
Don’t give them reason for more ways to do so. Don’t give them legitimacy. That’s deterministic. It’s intent. It’s not failed if it worked. Your opinion on a system which is failed or fallible is not the same as the Oracle hocho who wants to be God.
They’re not sharing your values, morals, ethics or compassion.
The root cause of this issue that they identify, is 100% the kind of AI that they’ll build for this situation.
Old mate wants to use it to keep people on their best behaviour. The kind of subjective wording that whatever he doesn’t like, is the exact reason people lie in court.
Power to that thought process through systemising it, legitimising it, is exactly part of the problem.
What’s that American who said lies about the eating cats then justifying it by saying “I’d lie if it got the American public to wake up”. Let me get the quote…
https://www.mediaite.com/news/remarkable-confession-jd-vance-absolutely-floors-observers-with-comment-that-hes-been-creating-stories-about-migrant-pet-eating/
Yep. It’s not infallible, it’s intentional. Intent goes into the creation of systems and implementations. These are the kind of people that want these systems. They’re justified in their own minds.
So to close the loop you linked that article and it’s point was:
Don’t give them reason for more ways to do so. Don’t give them legitimacy. That’s deterministic. It’s intent. It’s not failed if it worked. Your opinion on a system which is failed or fallible is not the same as the Oracle hocho who wants to be God.
They’re not sharing your values, morals, ethics or compassion.
What an unhinged rant. Even 30 seconds after posting I can barely understand my point. I’ll leave it there unedited though.
Not who you responded to, but I appreciate the honesty, lol. Tip of the hat to ya 🤠