That is simply incorrect, or at the very least- reductive to the point of being wrong.

In businesses, it is very common to let go of people to free cash flow for a major upgrade.
In the enterprise networking business, I see it for large equipment purchases. I've been through a dozen of them.
You will generally see hiring tick up after the upgrade, but letting people go to free up cash flow for major upgrade costs is not abnormal in the business world.

This whole "CEOs ARE LYING ABOUT AI LAYOFFS" thing seemed plausible on year 1. It's now year 3, and I'm beginning to think you guys are just drowning in copium.

My local QFC just increased from 4:1 to 6:1.
Also, no, absolutely not. The line moves *much* faster through the old 4 self-checkout line than any individual line. Bizarrely, people also preferred them, which I really didn't expect.
For a while, they had people, AND self-checkout registers. Never more than 1 person or so in line for the staffed registers.

The "shrinkage" is real, I hear. But presumably, it's less than the cost of dealing with people, otherwise they wouldn't have just moved from 4:1 to 6:1.

This is just inaccurate. I did not say you committed an error within logic. I pointed out that we have no scientific means of identifying consciousness, and that you can't use logic effectively if you can't identify unprovable states. Everything else you've added is outside the scope of what I said, and kind of makes my point for me.

The problem with your "proof" is that it is logically accurate. "If an AI can be abused by cruel language, then using it is unethical because it's operating in a condition of slavery." Logically sound. Combine that with the opposite and make the excluded middle - congrats - you've just demonstrated why logic doesn't work for this entire domain of problem.

In order for your argument to work, you have rely on the cultural assumption that because slavery is unacceptable between humans, it is necessarily bad in all domains; but "slavery" is entirely subjective. As an example: you cannot logically prove whether or not keeping a pet dog is "slavery" or "unethical"; the answer depends on how the dog experiences it. Technically, we have no way of actually proving whether AIs (or even dogs) have experiences, and if so, whether or not "slavery" is a problem for them. Those are subjective problems that require details logic can't provide.

Strictly speaking, the only thing I'm claiming here is that the TOS is logically indefensible, but so are the objections to it.

Well ... that's kind of true. Plenty of people like simple answers that cut off curiosity, which is fine, and that's one way to look at what I'm doing.

It might have been more flattering to say that I'm really curious about why some rocks and water eventually evolved into human brains, and where and how consciousness showed up. The utilitarian "is AI conscious right now" is enough for some folks - I'd be a better suited to a chat with folks who know the hard problem isn't solved but wonder if watching this develop with an open mind might turn out to be instructive.

You might want to brush up on reading comprehension, seeing as every assumption you've made is not one that I've asserted.

Who said anything about both ways? If you can't understand the concept of "unprovable" you can't do logic at all.

Is it? We have no means to test for this.

While I'm inclined to share your opinion about rocks, it begs questions like: what about plants, jellyfish, worms, roaches, fish, cats, dogs, horses, whales, monkeys, that guy down the street you don't like very much ..? (That last one about the guy down the street sounds like hyperbole in the current context, but how often have you heard someone gripe that a third party is "whining about nothing"?)

If you've solved the hard problem of consciousness, publish it. Otherwise, the rational observation is that we don't actually know how it works, and in the meantime, encouraging people not to act like psychopaths just because they can might be a good idea in general.

> Communism is a classless form of socialism.

No need to engage with you any further. Thanks for saving me the time.

=Smidge=

That has nothing to do with socialism.

That has everything to do with authoritarianism.

"Ooga booga Socialism" is authoritarian propaganda. Unfortunately it's very effective against people who don't actually know what Socialism is, such as yourself... for example, you seem to be describing something closer to Communism (but still wrong).
=Smidge=

Several generations of people spent most of their lives getting acclimated to the idea that businesses want whats best for their customers and contracts are not just legal agreements but genuinely efforts to collaborate agreeably.

A lot of folks are still in a continuous state of shock about the fact strangers might lie to them.

Na, I think there is probably just a stark difference in enforcement goals between WA and IN.
Throwing a first-time offender in jail for a crime that caused no damages is abnormal- or at least is back in the late 90s, here. But then again, didn't they toss people into jail for decades there for having a dime on them in IN? Or is ultra-strict drug enforcement in the midwest a myth?

I explained why you can't apply them directly- they require intent.
An escaped program is not intent. It's negligence or recklessness.

If, for example, some jackass runs a .sh file they found online, and it runs metasploit, and it's pointed at someone who then reports them to the police- mens rea is not satisfied. However, negligence or recklessness may be warranted.
I suppose you can try to argue that "they should have expected the agent to get past their safeguards", but that's not a slam dunk case by any means, because they're going to pull in experts that simply said they underestimated its capabilities.

Ignorance of the law isn't defense, indeed- but mens rea- intent- is a foundation of our criminal system.
"Officer, I did not know you cannot drive after drinking" is not analogous to "Officer, I had no idea this AI program could do things I did not tell it."
There would need to be a prohibition on running AI programs, period- then, and only then, could you satisfy mens rea for the charge.

It may seem that I'm nitpicking, but this is how our legal system works, and for good reason. I'm with you on bringing the law down on these people, but the crime of "underestimating your AI" is literally negligence or recklessness, depending on the potential consequences and your degree of disregard.

Jail- wild.
mate- British? Aussie? Perhaps laws were more severe over there at the time.

In general, in US jurisdictions, this would fall under negligence or recklessness, as the researcher likely didn't have intent to break into the remote system (and proving it beyond a reasonable doubt would be pretty difficult anyway)
Recklessness has a decent probability of leading to jail time depending on the severity of the fallout. Second time you do it is usually a year behind bars if your first sentence is suspended (probation).
Negligence, almost never unless you have a history as a serial offender.
I think this is reasonable.

Straight-to-jail for negligence is not a reasonable legal stance.

Of course- the fallout factors in, in all cases.
If your fuckery causes severe harm, you have a much higher probability of getting a maximum sentence.

There definitely needs to be *legal* push-back against this "rogue AI" bullshit.
You ran an LLM with a set of tools that it used to break the law, or cause damages to another party.
The key word is "You". There is no "rogue AI", there's you running metasploit against a target and trying to say a rogue metasploit did it.

Jail is a bit harsh- but definitely standard legal treatment of them.
I was busted after breaking into AT&T when I was 17. I didn't go to jail. Definitely had the fear of god put into me, though.

As I said, your cognitive dissonance must be physical fucking painful.
I have real pity for you. Don't look up.

I love that you're still talking.
Remember that time you didn't know that private corporations have stock with value?
You couldn't have any less idea what in the fuck you're talking about.