I wish I had this kind of job security

Yep, I understand but disagree. Maybe it comes from working with so many ESL coders, but I’ll happily accept typo corrections because it’s not always obvious what words should be if you’re not steeped in the culture.

I honestly don’t understand how this works and I want to.

If everyone decides murder is wrong, then some people will have to be the force to investigate and punish those crimes.

Who is accountable for overseeing those using force to ensure they don’t use it for personal gain?

You can also apparently wear weights to lose weight for this reason.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30082-1/fulltext

Narrow fine-tuning can produce broadly misaligned

It works on humans too. Look at that fox entertainment has done to folks.

“comments must be accurate,” is not a rule you should bend. Bending it even a little leads to last programming and shit code.

Consensual training data makes it ok. I think AI companies should be accountable for curating inputs.

Any art is ok as long as the artist consents. Even if they’re drawing horrible things, it’s just a drawing.

Now the real question is, should we include rapes of people who have died and have no family? Because then you can’t even argue increased suffering of the victim.

But maybe this just gets solved by curation and the “don’t be a dick” rule. Because the above sounds kinda dickish.

It just means I don’t use AI to create porn. I figure that’s as good as it gets.

Yeah, I’m ok with that.

AI doesn’t create, it modifies. You might argue that humans are the same, but I think that’d be a dismal view of human creativity. But then we’re getting weirdly philosophical.

We could be sure of it if AI curated it’s inputs, which really isn’t too much to ask.

Yes. Conservatives only learn when something impacts them directly.

Perhaps you need to plug into better sources.

This personally hit my “if I hear about this one more time I’m going to scream” level of exposure

I just had this argument with my HR team. I want to hire some people straight out of college and train them. They want to spend 15k more and get someone with experience.

But where do those people magically come from?

Watching videos of rape doesn’t create a new victim. But we consider it additional abuse of an existing victim.

So take that video and modify it a bit. Color correct or something. That’s still abuse, right?

So the question is, at what point in modifying the video does it become not abuse? When you can’t recognize the person? But I think simply blurring the face wouldn’t suffice. So when?

That’s the gray area. AI is trained on images of abuse (we know it’s in there somewhere). So at what point can we say the modified images are okay because the abused person has been removed enough from the data?

I can’t make that call. And because I can’t make that call, I can’t support the concept.

without a victim

It was trained on something.

You’re struggling so hard in the comments, just to be wrong.

Why are you so invested in capitalism? Do you own lots of capital or something?

Imagine being so naive that you think that’s a real person.

But if we’re not being snarky for a moment… It’s trivially easy to create a bot to do exactly what this person is doing. Spam others with begging for money and a bunch of sob stories.

This is why I turn off Google spam filtering. My attention is worth nothing so everyone who can message me should be able to.

Welcome! We have beans. I’m still not sure why.

You either don’t have kids, or they’re not horribly picky eaters like mine.

The stringy bits of an orange are tedious to remove. But if you ask my children, they’re also poisonous and taste like death.