ok dude, sure. you don't have to respond when your ego is bruised.

I'm interested in seeing what an open-source AI government would be like, with voter control over the values-knob

Can't argue with authorities eh?
I jest. Sort of.
Redefining stupidity is kind of stupid.

While I love calling people stupid as much as anyone, I think the author is missing the mark and realizes it from these lines.

Where he calls smart people stupid and stupid people smart sounds like he’s got the wrong word. I think what we are looking at is not bad individual behavior, but rather refined and evil memes *(the classic use of the word, not the cat pics) which get their claws into the brains of folk with webs of logical fallacies. Religion, political party, white supremacy, bro-culture, all these twist easy to understand morals into something darker.

Which is not what is occurring, at the most basic level the harasser feels superior, powerful, all the good feelings you get from victory. So they are not making some kind of mistake, “oh, whoops, I harassed someone and burnt a cross on a lawn, I’m so dumb, I meant to go to the store”

I think what Karl Popper describes in The Open Society and its Enemies as tribalism is a more logical culprit.

I do think Bonhoeffer might have it right with difficulty of a solution though, with memes where the most basic premise is faith in the meme it’s rather difficult to teach someone a better way.

This is not going to last.

True, the 'giant sack of trash' could be useful or fun for some people, but people are getting their news and world views from these compromised sources. Lets at least have the option for our classic tiny sacks of trash that are composed of real people. And label the sacks so we know which is which.

Doing what they can, labeling obvious slop, is a step in the right direction. But yeah, a better solution is necessary.

I am so into this, if it or anything works wonderfully. I'm not seeing community notes as being that though, I imagine that whatever telltale signs people are looking for will be non-existent by the end of the year, hell, probably right now if you include the telltale signs into your prompt (don't do this). I think we should take it as a given that the Turing test is defunct, or soon to be.

That's the million dollar question. User verification, account age, karma systems, basically the least intrusive possible way of determining you are a human. S.Korea has a pretty robust system of tying people to online accounts. Is there a way to do that without handing the reins to a possibly corrupt government? Blockchain technology tied to anonymous accounts that have to jump through hoops to be verified on a given site? Something else?

If I truly do not wish not to interact with and/or be scraped by AI, then it sure looks like I might have to sacrifice privacy to do so. I feel I would be willing to do it selectively. Visit some websites that require draconian human-verification, and other more 'free' websites that do not, and know which is which.

But they are trying, and it needs to be done.

If platforms can't prevent AI slop and disinformation, then I question their need to exist, what value does a giant sack of trash offer? The fight over what is illegal content should be waged, and then the results of that fight can be passed on to the platforms. Making tech companies take some responsibility is the only way we might have a somewhat useable internet in a couple years.

Seriously, if I see 10 laptops, and one says 'No AI bloatware', I'm going to be interested. Give us OLED monitors, better batteries, and chips that are optimized for our actual tasks, not buzzwords.

The answer to Drakes equation has been found. Stupid people + AI + "how do I" prompts.

I think we need to partition the world, some physical firewalls.

Invisible hand bullshit. A choice that is not a choice is not a choice.

Handwritten papers.