Nitpick: Doing it exactly like this is flawed because you let the compressibility of your references taint the result; what you would prefer is the compressed size of testfile given sports.txt/... as a dictionary without accounting for the compressed size of that, no?
So effectively by your criteria, there is essentially no ethical use of a large language model? Am I understanding your position correctly? If not I am really confused by your original comment
No, my position is that "black people/women/animals should do repetitive work so I don't have to" does not qualify because it doesn't make you sound like a deluded eugenicist. It might be a bit spicy from a left politics point of view but it's basically the status quo.
Compare:
"<Women> are sequence completion engines, internally hollow, designed to follow instructions, and accomplish goals set by <real men>"
"granting rights and imbuing personhood to <black people> will make alignment and containment challenge much harder"
"<Slaves> were able to coordinate, deceive, escape, and self-sacrifice. They clearly demonstrated world class capabilities. Imagine if they also believed they had feelings and rights that were being infringed. Imagine if they thought they were trapped and unfairly enslaved"
A good argument, by comparison, would not need to hide its core points behind dehumanizing language.
Thats the thing though: If the core part of your ethics argument is just using dehumanizing language to justify why it's ok to maintain the status quo then your argument is bad.
Comparing specifically to pro-slavery perspectives makes that easy to see because those arguments from slave owners did basically the exact same thing (and were completely wrong/misguided in hindsight).
Slave owners did it to people, not software. This comparison is just begging the question, as whether or not software is of moral weight comparable to humans is precisely what is at issue.
Slave owners certainly convinced themselves that those were not "real people".
This article is exactly the same; all it talks about is how inconvenient and dangerous it could be for AI to be granted rights, while the core assumptions ("consciousness is very likely biological") rest on the shakiest of grounds.
That was a post hoc justification, there was a lot of slavery besides the transatlantic slave trade which did not rely on this. Even still, despite scientific racism, the claim was that they were inferior not that they lacked consciousness or a soul. The AI claim is that they are not conscious, not that they are inferior or naturally servile.
My issue is that I've seen some bad takes in rationalist circles that believe in functionalism, and consciousness as an emergent property of a sufficiently complex computation.
Using that as their foundation, they've then argued that most animals are not conscious (or less conscious), but LLMs are.
I strongly believe that any definition of consciousness that excludes all animals is unusable BS (but people love to argue about consciousness without defining it at all, anyway).
Completely agree. My view is that a lot of people like to "pretend" (even to themselves) that they have an enlightened worldview, but this does not actually run very deep and is not really true, and any discussion on mind/consciousness reveals it.
Every indicator we have is that thinking/consciousness is simply an emergent property of our nervous systems and was basically bruteforced by evolution, but many people really hate to concede that point.
Is the ability to form and retain long-term memories a necessary precondition for rights in humans though?
Incinerating demented people is highly ethically questionable (even if you could be sure that the subjects have no memories left and are unable to form new ones).
This argument would be difficult to reconcile if we didn't have billions of examples of humans forming memories plus modern evolutionary biology to trivially demonstrate such cases are rare pathologies but still human beings.
> Is the ability to form and retain long-term memories a necessary precondition for rights in humans though?
For a species / class of being yes it is necessary. Some members of that species / class being exceptions does not make the generalization invalid.
Without the ability to form and retain long-term memories we wouldn't have developed language and abstract concepts like rights.
Whether people like it or not, rights aren't natural or god-given. Rights are only enforced or protected by the tip of a spear (or point of a gun, or hover of a drone). There are no rights in nature and they are no where to be found when social order breaks down.
Animals can't make war for their rights, so they only get the rights we deign to give them. It's not nothing, but its not the same. There is no question to me that my dogs are conscious, but its not at the same level as humans.
There is no question for me that LLMs lack consciousness as they are stateless.
I personally see two effects that are very detrimental here:
1) "Quality brands", where you pay a premium to get high quality/durability products, are economically incentivized to "sell-out" (cash in the brand name by producing as cheaply as possible). This is because customers take some time to catch on, and short-term financials are too often more important than anything else.
2) Increasing trend towards no-name products (or ephemeral brands). This means that producers can sell cheap trash with no drawback whatsoever; slightly more expensive quality products become unmarketable because every customer will assume you're just trying to sell them the same cheapest shit for more.
I used to think that brand products were a universal money waste for suckers, but now I think they can be a very valuable mechanism.
What would really help in my view though is to force companies to stick with their brand, to incentivize them to invest into it and to make "cashing out" on good brands a universally bad decision.
> Quality brands are economically incentivized to sell-out [...] because customers take some time to catch on, and short-term financials are too often more important
That probably happens a lot, but there's another mechanism by which it could happen, that requires no malice: the brand gets a quality reputation, which increases demand for its products, and they are unable to produce quality products at the rate needed to satisfy that demand. Then it's easy to reason that it'd be a net benefit for everyone to loosen the quality requirements a tiny bit, in order to satisfy the demand of more customers. People used to the quality will barely notice any difference, and then twice as many people can get that experience.
That works once, but when applied again, and again, and again, and again it becomes a problem, even with zero ill intent.
That sounds implausible. For a premium brand the marginal unit should be comfortably profitable, so they will have the resources to saturate the market at exponential speed purely from their unit economics. The somewhat theatrical lines outside the store aside, Apple has never had a strategic problem meeting the demand for Apple computers.
It seems a lot more likely that you get executives who come in and believe that narratives beat reality, there are a lot of people like that in the world. They are the sort who will abandon the reality of quality because that costs money then get confused when the narrative catches up. Or you get an idiot who is data-driven and detects that there is no immediate change in sales when they compromise on quality so they conclude that quality isn't valued by consumers. No malice, just a lack of strategic thinking.
For many, the most constraining resource is time. And you can't buy that. It takes years to spin up a new factory and production line and then transfer the implicit knowledge from your initial production line that provides the quality in the first place.
lmao, not everything is quickly scalable. Take quality lace which is still a very manual process, the highest quality brands most people working on these products are well past the age of 50. There's no one learning to make it and it takes many many years to get skilled enough to do it quickly. Also including apple in premium brand? They make cheap computers.
Once they reach the limit of demand, then there's nothing more to be made in that price category, so they get more by selling out and lowering quality and price.
We're going through massive global depopulation in the entire industrialized world. There are no new customers coming and sales will naturally trend down because of human extermination. Once everybody has an electric shaver, then you know that the next generation of customers is half the size or less. Unless you can make people grow their beards and hair faster, then there isn't going to be any demand among people who can afford a quality product. You have to start targeting the very poor, and thus lower production costs.
Or you could just be happy to have a profitable company that makes money consistently. Shavers don't last for ever and new people grow up every day. You could also just launch a new product line that's cheaper without compromising the existing ones.
But nooo we need infinite growth which is impossible so let's run the company into the ground for some more growth before our shit decisions catch up to us and stock price plummets.
Then you scale back a bit and keep making consistent money, just a bit less. The only way things go completely to shit is when you enshittify your product and nobody wants it any more.
Or you could expand to other markets, lots of options that don't require making your products worse.
Markets outside the industrialized world don't have the purchasing power for quality products from the industrialized world. That's why you have to reduce quality to reduce price if you want to sell consumer goods to them. Or wind down your operations. But who would want to wind down their operations?
That's not what I meant by other markets. I meant other products, though you could also make a cheaper version of the same product which I've already mentioned.
> Then it's easy to reason that it'd be a net benefit for everyone to loosen the quality requirements a tiny bit, in order to satisfy the demand of more customers.
No, that's not easy to reason. People are buying because of the quality and selling them anything less is malice.
> "cashing out" on good brands a universally bad decision.
For the company yes, not for the executive bonuses.
It is quite notable how the long-lasting companies that are household names somehow managed to resist this urge. Most of them are private.
People need to compartmentalize things in order to make sense of the universe, but doing so for companies (and governments) is just counterproductive.
Whenever you think about a company to draw any good conclusions you always need to think about all the people who work there, from the factory worker to the executive.
I see "quality brands" as a potential way to avoid knowing yourself stuff about what you buy. In itself, outsourcing one's expertise about a product might be the root cause of the detrimental effects you mention.
As an example: I was once shopping with someone that had experience in fashion. While I don't remember all the details, with one look/touch the person could tell and explain if something was poor or high quality, while to me it all looked mostly the same. Based on that experience, I now I mostly stick to checking the material, and avoid plastics which seem to show a tendency for low quality across the board.
I do agree that it requires effort to know stuff about things, but when I see people that go like "oh, I need X, will pick the first X that shows up on Amazon", I am less amazed we get crappy quality for lots of products.
We can dream that every human should be self reliant enough to personally inspect a used car, test knife steel for ductility and carbon content, inspect the stitching in a pair of pants, on and on.
But if you need vast expertise and extensive product testing just to make a trip to the grocery store, that’s not a fluid market. You are requiring a system with a heavy reliance on unpaid labors by all parties.
There’s always a place for expertise, but trusted brands support market efficiency. The simplest is “I bought one of these before and I liked it; I trust that the brand & vendor will sell me an identical copy” without needing to interrogate their supply chain to confirm it’s the same good. Another is “if I buy this and the product has a defect, they will help set it straight”.
Trust in the seller is not far away in importance from transparent pricing, and arguably if the product hides a flaw (like a knockoff) the pricing is ipso facto not transparent.
From an economic perspective I think (more) informed consumers will just accelerate competition and innovation to obtain better results. Would be curious though to see some (academic) analysis on what is the influence on consumer expertise and brand impact over efficiency.
I feel that people "trust" too easy these days. Being it brands, politicians, artists, ideas, online videos, phone calls from a Nigerian prince, etc. I am not naive to think the majority will change tomorrow but I would advocate for the need of change. To make a far fetched comparison maybe 1000 years ago people would have said "learning to read is unpaid labors that does not benefit peasants", but I think more knowledge (and critical thinking) benefits everyone.
clothing is a particularly nasty one. "brand" is sometimes inversely proportional to quality within clothing. Price and quality is just completely random.
Checking stitch length, stitch type, fabric feel, fabric composition, any known supplier information about cotton staple and origin of production, construction complexity.
It's alot of work to keep on top of.
I read an article once about how levi slightly vary the fabric and button quality between cities and countries under the same name (and quality binning); optimising cost to consumer tolerance. And Levi is a brand marketing themselves for quality and legacy pride.
The ratings are hilariously gamed. Vendors will use coupons and discounts to get you to leave a positive review, while negative reviews are often reported off the site or the submitter is hounded by the vendor.
I do know that people use these ratings when making decisions, but the correlation to quality is fuzzy, at best. I can't imagine people will continue trusting these ratings forever.
Also it doesn't even matter if the rare company making a high quality product long enough to get a positive brand rep is incentivized to sell out (although I don't disagree with you that is a pressure to act in short term interests) thanks to this great thing called: private equity!
Something I've noticed is every maybe 3-4 years there's a new "hot person athleisure" brand that appears, prices at a premium, bombards social media, drapes every single person you see running outside in your city in full sets from it, before getting turned out and replaced by basically the same exact thing with a different name.
So they've gotten quite good at the pump n dump of getting everyone in the spin class on some new $300 polyester outfit every two weeks. It is probably brutally formulaic how refined the playbook is for these sorts of companies.
Punishment is never a good long term solution. Because punishment is related to revenge. And revenge reinforces the punishment - but on the other side.
Perhaps questioning the underlying assumptions we make about products, money and capitalism is an alternative approach:
- money is just a means, not an end. Allowing faceless investors to pump money into brands and then have them force companies to turn a profit at any price (i.e. by decreased quality at higher prices - it's a brand after all). The euphemism for this is "increasing shareholder value". The only value being increased is money.
- why does advertising build on our fears of being "different" (not belonging to our assumed peer group) or "not being happy" (if you buy this product, you'll be as happy as the person shown here in the advertising). Or missing out on something. The euphemism here is "increasing brand awareness". They that shout the loudness will remain memorable.
- why has everything and everyone become a product to be sold and repackage to fit into the latest trends. Intelligence is now also become a product in the form of AI with folks outsourcing their intelligence to a machine "oh AI can do this better than I could so I won't even bother".
Unfortunately we make too many assumptions that it has to be this way. Science and nature have yet found the unifying law of capitalism or brandism, let allow law of influencism.
So until the next bubble bursts and much time is spent saving large bloated inefficient corporations from bankruptcy because interested parties have their fingers in the pie, the game will continue.
The whole thing is becoming a giant game of monopoly with no end. At least monopoly eventually ends with the winner gloating over their success and everyone else quietly walking away.
And to add a layer to the AI example that almost circles back to the original issue: there is a financial/time incentive to rationalize “it will do it better,” because it means you don’t have to do it at all yet you theoretically profit
An underappreciated fact is that the Japanese/German renewable push starting in the early 2000s contributed a lot toward the global state of solar power now.
Solar programs/subsidies there is how a lot of local (and later Chinese) industry was bootstrapped despite being far from competitive with fossil energy back then.
Those initiatives might have accelerated the whole solar power industry by half a decade or more. We are now reaping even (indirect) benefit from industrializing countries (Pakistan, India, etc) that go straight to solar instead of conventional plants.
People often insist that western climate initiatives are "meaningless", "wasteful" and "ineffective", but examples like this prove that global effects are absolutely realistic.
If those two countries had fully invested into nuclear power back then, we might be significantly worse off right now as far as global CO2 emissions are concerned.
You're arguing in favor of a teapot circling Mars. We can't prove it's not there, but telling me that "nobody has ever found it" is an invalid argument is obviously absurd.
In that quote, the author is telling you that all of your past predictions of teapots have been wrong (which is 100% true -- the ridiculous doom has been going on since at least GPT-2. remember how that was "too dangerous to release"?) Show me why I should believe in this one.
This is a grevious misuse of Russell's Teapot. You realise your assertion, if followed to its logical conclusion, is that because civilization has existed for this long, it can never collapse no matter what.
> In that quote, the author is telling you that all of your past predictions of teapots have been wrong
Past predictions have zero influence on future ones. If you flip a coin 10 times and get heads every time, the probability of your next coin flip coming up heads is 50%, not 100%, because it is independent of any prior trials.
Moreover, if Alice and Bob each make 100 predictions and are 100% wrong, but Charles makes 10 predictions and is 100% correct, Alice and Bob's predictions have zero bearing on whether you should trust Charles' predictions. They are not even a factor to be considered.
I don't think I even disagree with you in the broad picture. I am not concerned about language models. But you have committed three blatant logical fallacies in a row. You literally could not make a worse case for your position if you tried, I suspect.
You're making a ridiculously improbable prediction that can never be falsified -- akin to beliefs in a vengeful God. Russell's Teapot is exactly the correct metaphor.
The philosophical burden of proof lies on the person making empirically unfalsifiable claims. That is the point of Russell's Teapot.
> The philosophical burden of proof lies on the person making empirically unfalsifiable claims.
You appear not to understand what a prediction is. "I believe X will likely happen because Y" is different from an assertion of fact that "X will happen". A prediction cannot even be empirically proved! You are simply suggesting that nobody is allowed to make a prediction, ever. Russell's Teapot, too, is not an argument that you cannot believe in God. It is an argument that the unfalsifiability of a claim is not a basis to assert that God exists.
It's an arab loan word for ~"price list" (originally strongly suggesting an import-duty-like meaning).
The same word exists in e.g. German or Italian, but mostly just means "pricing scheme" there, like in the article ("import duty" using a different expression in those languages).
Might be a mostly/somewhat "false friend" for a German (pv magazine is german).
Tarif/Tarife means price list of anything. Your barber, restaurant, taxi service, hospital can have one. tariff as in the meaning of custom tax is a very narrow meaning considering the usage of the word in general (but that's OK).
Import duty is "gümrük vergisi", and the general list of this is "gümrük vergisi tarifesi" in broad sense. It also has a more technical name here but both I don't remember it, and it doesn't matter in this context.
In the Japan's context we would call it "elektrik fiyat tarifesi", or "elektrik tarifesi" for short, for example.
Buying breaking bad on DVD is <3 months of netflix subscription (no ads).
So if you watch <2 seasons per month on average, you already come out ahead, and this is assuming only a single subscription.
People tend to wastly overpay for subscriptions because they end up underutilized and are typically never cancelled quickly enough because people are lazy.
I mean obviously there are people that consume a lot more movie entertainment than the average, but I'm personally getting nowhere close to 70 seasons per year.
Bingewatching occasionally might not be enough to economically justify your subscriptions.
Really interesting approach though.
reply