Can you name a "Marxist-Leninist AI" that's made by a real AI lab (i.e. no finetunes of open models made by someone on the internet)? I'm just trying to understand what the other side's equivalent of MechaHitler is here.
Can you name a "Nazi AI" that's made by a real AI lab (i.e. no finetunes of open models made by someone on the internet)? I'm just trying to understand what the other side's equivalent of MechaStalin is here.
Can I remind you that the MechaHitler episode was a real thing? If an LLM being lobotomized to the point of supporting Hitler out of nowhere wasn't Nazist in your opinion, then nothing is.
Tay is not an LLM and was trained directly by its user base. Grok is trained by xAI that obviously wanted to turn it into a far-right talking point reciter but went just a little too far.
What? I started the conversation, I set its boundaries. You're the one who's now trying to redefine it. I challenged the parent to show me a Marxist-Leninist AI, trained by an AI lab in a way that's equivalent to what xAI did.
I don't think you even have a point. The AfD doing the same thing doesn't say anything, and I never said there can only be one pro-Nazi AI in the world. I just dismissed Tay out of hand because 4chan users spamming a primitive chatbot with neonazi shit has very little relevance to the conversation about AI labs trying to influence their products to support extreme ideologies.
That would require one to have robots, leaving Americans and Chinese in the mix. Unless you mean biorobots, then it's nothing new and there's no need to be alarmed.
> For all the feigned outrage, people want this, and will work hard every day to pay for the next iteration of the surveillance apparatus.
My sad realization is that the Buddhists were right all along. The primary drivers of human mind, before self-purification, are greed, anger, and ignorance. What you are describing here is greed. People want to get useful things for free. This is the core of the problem. If people were, by default, expecting to pay for everything they use, spying on them would not be accepted. Instead, they want stuff for free and they choose to be willfully blind to the spying.
> If people were, by default, expecting to pay for everything they use, spying on them would not be accepted.
The spying may have started with free products, but it has metastasized into every aspect of life, free or not. It always does.
> choose to be willfully blind to the spying
Many don't. They also, by and large, don't have a choice. Data brokers, Flock cameras, WiFi-based radar[1]. You really can only do so much as an individual before the only escape is being a hermit in a cave.
> The primary drivers of human mind, before self-purification, are greed, anger, and ignorance
Which then gets distilled into the only drivers of corporations. Corporations that then destroy all moral options for individuals.
Funnily enough I've found for the most part the counter to all this spying also tends to be free products. Signal, pi-hole, ublock origin, graphene OS, Opnsense, Linux, etc. I have yet to find paid-for apps that are superior to the free ones in this regard. If I want an image editor I'm using Gimp, not Photoshop. Libreoffice is better than Microsoft Office if you don't want to be spied on. Most of the cost is learning about the alternatives and how to use them.
You can't fight with the times. Kids want colorful mods, dance moves, and other stuff like that. Girls also play, they won't play things like the original Doom or Quake, and boys don't get to meet girls much if they are not playing the same games.
> Not financial advice, but: Honestly it’s pretty hard and I wouldn’t recommend it. Shorting stocks and getting into bonds / default swaps but the system is broadly rigged against small players doing well here. Ie in the Big Short see everything that was needed for two guys to bet with their own money.
Do you base your knowledge on anything other than a very mediocre movie?
If an "investor" believes the market will sell off drastically, there are many, many ways they can express that bet in the open market. They can short index futures, buy put options, long volatility... so many options that depend only on the thesis being right. It does not sound as sexy as "look kid, the billionaires rigged the system!", but it's true.
The problem is the old saw about the market staying irrational.
You can't time the market reliably. Ultimately the base advice remains sound even if it's couched in a bit of conspiracy: diversify and allocate your assets based on your risk profile, as informed by your retirement timeline.
There's an entire profession doing that: traders. But for most people, yes, it is not worth it. No argument there. I just don't like conspiracy theories and that line of thought, it's cheap and stupid.
> There's an entire profession doing that: traders.
Well no, there's an entire profession trying to time the market. The data is not favourable as to their ability to actually do it at a rate greater than random chance.
But.
I also don't think it's reasonable to label as a conspiracy a claim that markets are rife with cheating, insider trading, etc. Just look at the current US Presidents profit margins.
Is that systematic, organized, conspiratorial, rich v poor market rigging? No. But it would be naive, I think, to believe that the rich aren't significantly advantaged in the market in ways that the average person isn't. There is, after all, a reason payment for order flow exists as a valuable thing.
That sub is games, porn, and complaints about not having money. A waste of time.
reply