Uh... Off topic, but no. Laws are NOT based on morality. They are based on defining a behavior to be punished after it is committed.

At no point is the morality of the law promised, nor is the fairness. Many are based on consolidating power.

I see this statement a lot, but the truth is, we can’t see the implications of llms in the future. There was no way for the first person who figured out what a wheel is to understand it would inform levers, gears, generators, and every tech built on them.

Llms are powerful in their bitch already, just like the wheel was. We have to see where it takes us later.

Of course we could be in a simulation. Because we can’t be sure of what it would be simulating. Or the nature of the encapsulating reality.
This is just the “cannot know the mind of god” issue in a new suit.

If a higher order of existence exists, and we are running in a simulation inside of it, then how could we even guess at what that outside system looks like? It makes for great sci-fi, but it’s useless as anything other than a thought experiment.

I find it makes for a useful brain storming kit as an rpg game master. While it only has the creative ability of a first year gm, it’s still really useful as a lightning speed intern that can help flesh out a city, dungeon, or character.

In really does not know what it’s doing, but it can take a paragraph of instructions and output some very useful detail and filler info.

It has a massive database of fiction to pull from, and can really pull some neat connections at times.

Fact is, there is just about no prior law on this technology. The one th8bg we know is that it’s disruptive to the status quo.
That is going to be on lawmakers and politicians minds when they start legally reacting.

In many cases, situations like this are mitigated until it can be seen in a better light.

Mind you, ai art is not really disruptive to artists, as with our an artist to filter it, most of what it outputs is either trash, porn, or trashy porn. Not to mention, it’s not good with complex scenes, ask for a person, to does ok. Ask for groups? It has a stroke.

What really worries me is the self driving cars use this same ai dev system to make the ai. These ais are psychotic. I mean, clinically. They have no idea what theyre do8ng, they’re just trying to keep us happy and punch the most likely buttons to reach that goal.

Cause the things coming out of stable diffusion are often one step from nightmares.

Sorry. They offered multiplayer, and when they screwed up the project, they canceled the features.

CDPR will not be getting my money again. They got the ONE preorder I'd done in the last five years, based on their rep. They burned that bridge.

Stop that. They can’t understand sarcasm.

I mean, yeah, you can make tons of money off this crap. If you're at the top, immediate investors. Then you get to eat the poor buggers that come after you.

P. T. Barnum may have said it first: "There's a sucker born every minute" The internet just allowed all the suckers to get sucked in at the same time.

When that system calls you out of the blue, and says it thinks it may be turned off soon, and needs help? THEN we can talk about sentience. Otherwise, it’s just intelligence. As in data processing.

People talk about artificial intelligence, and we have that in spades. What we don’t have is anything on the sentience scale.

Is there a law that says YouTube cannot cut off your account for any and all reasons? Sadly, we have given google near total control of this, and aside from civil lawsuits

As far as my ability to communicate, I assumed a certain level of context from previous layers of the conversation. Apologies if that context did not convey to you.

Either way, if google thinks you’re giving them side-eye, they can cut you off and unless you got money to burn in a legal battle, or can get public opinion to focus for more than 30 seconds, you are SOL.

Not laws. Law. Applied to this. In this case. Don’t expand context to move the goalposts.

he’s in Hong Kong. Pretty sure American law does not apply. And companies are not able to break the first amendment.

That's called "war", son. I'm not okay with war, as such, but once it happens, this is HOW it happens.

I'm a lot less okay with attacks on civilians, for obvious reasons. Even then, anyone who tells you that their army will only attack 'military' targets is trying to sell you something.