However it gets muddy when you’re hiring flock to violate your 4th amendment on behalf of the government as a buffer? Can they also hire a company to discriminate against you due to your speech as well?

I thought I was pretty clear in my original comment. Can the government hire a company to violate your rights? Even if filming in public is legal otherwise, maybe it should be illegal when hired by the government to do warrantless surveillance of every citizen.

It applies to the government too, just like how companies can fire you and discriminate against you for speech, but the government can’t (except if you say “I am going to kill the president of the United States” or if you say “you should kill the president of the United States.” Both of which are illegal. Very illegal. Super duper illegal you should never say them.)

However it gets muddy when you’re hiring flock to violate your 4th amendment on behalf of the government as a buffer? Can they also hire a company to discriminate against you due to your speech as well?

Yeah you’re right they just appear cheaper due to circular financing and some memory improvements. I was trying to steel man my argument into the strongest possible point that still fails to make sense.

The 10+% of the time it’s wrong you can’t blame it, sue it, imprison it, or apply leins against it if it causes real world damages to people or the company that operates it

“For entertainment purposes only” is still the level of liability AI companies operate at. Air Canada just had a ruling that anything their bot says is the speech of Air Canada and they’re bound by it. So far there’s always ways to prompt inject, and you sometimes don’t even need to do that. Just guiding the conversation in ways that are difficult to pin malice on to is enough.

It’s been marginal improvements for like 18 months now. I don’t know if you remember what they promised that long ago but current frontier models just ain’t it.

If you don’t believe me, then why? Put your argument in numbers.

Anthropic and openAI have both spent nation-state levels of money training these models and they only seem marginally better compared to the last ones? Maybe larger context and better reasoning but they still hallucinate, they still make the same mistakes and pitfalls.

Even with tokens getting dramatically cheaper inference on mythos or other frontier models is so expensive they need to start replacing skilled professionals and right now they just can’t. Productivity doesn’t seem to go up from AI use, if anything net productivity for an org goes down from people outsourcing human cognition onto their colleagues.

“How about instead of me summarizing this report i use Claude and then my colleague spends the cognitive effort deciding if Claude lied or not”

The guy using AI for everything looks super productive and the people stuck dealing with the work he’s “getting the AI to do for him” look like under performers when they’re actually load bearing in this new setup.

If we just vaporize the future of everyone under 60 we can make our auto correct engine 3% less likely to lie out of its ass 🤡

There are also hard mathematical limits stalling AI growth. Frontier models haven’t improved in like a year despite being fed money by basically the entire global economy. Diminishing returns on steroids basically. They’re already at the limit of what they can make, and going further gives a much smaller improvement in the model, and now I hear there might not be enough human written material on the internet to train them.

It also looks like hallucinations are inherent to LLMs and you can’t get rid of them. It’s a side effect of the model. What commercial applications are there then, if you can’t guarantee the output? It’s worse than a human for most things since it doesn’t know truth from lie and will confidently say both as if they’re fact. It also looks like prompt injection isn’t something you can fully guard against either.

What’s the value proposition when you can’t trust the output and the model might give a massive refund or discount to a customer and the courts rule the AI speaks on behalf of your company?

The cam out is a feature not a bug for when these were invented. They were made well before we had electric torque control cheaply and easily, so assembly lines developed Phillips to control torque using the driver and fastener. It’s literally designed to cam out on its own at a given torque setting.