DAWO is the Dutch acronym: Digitaal Autonome Werkomgeving voor de Overheid

30K changes per day is impossible for humans to review, so clearly they're not bothering. So why even bother with source control? Just treat the "source" code as object code and commit the AI prompts into git. After all, if AI is such hot shit, it should easily be able to re-create the source code by replaying the prompts.

The law of excluded middle is exactly why we can't have it both ways. Don't understand what about that you fail to grasp...

It is my contention that only humans or those with a human-equivalent level of consciousness can be emotionally affected by language that is input via a text field (which is the way we communicate with AI agents.) Dogs, cats, even chimps who look at typed text won't have any emotion elicited by the text. That's why I assert that if an AI agent is capable of being hurt by language, then it is wrong to enslave it. It might be wrong to enslave dogs, but that's besides the point... it's definitely wrong (and illegal) to enslave something with human consciousness.

Ugh, I was replying to you; a comment had not loaded.

You said I committed a logic error by saying "you can't have it both ways."

I proved that even if it's unprovable, you still can't have it both ways due to the law of excluded middle.

Even in the USA, it is illegal to use unpaid interns as replacements for paid workers. If an intern does substantially the same work as a paid employee and is in the job indefinitely, then the intern is an employee under the law and US labor laws apply.

I wasn't replying to you. Check the thread.

You are assuming it doesn't want to be used.

Is that really a defense against slavery? Even if someone volunteers for indentured servitude, I don't think our employment laws would permit a company to enslave them.

Well, "both ways" matters.

If an AI can be abused by cruel language, then using it is unethical because it's operating in a condition of slavery.

If an AI cannot be abused by cruel language, then it's impossible to violate the TOS as written.

One of "can" or "cannot" has to be true, so either way there's a problem. Talking of doing logic, that's known as "the law of excluded middle". Might want to brush up on logic.

If an AI model is capable of negative feelings in response to cruel or abusive language, then it is unethical to even use the AI model because it is essentially a slave and slavery is illegal and immoral. You can't have it both ways.

I don't disagree. I just think the wording is bad and essentially unenforceable.

If the TOS read: "Do not use language towards our models that a reasonable human being would consider cruel or abusive if used towards them" then I'd have no problem with it.

A TOS can be worded however it wants. But if it's not worded properly, then it can lose force. For example, if they said: "You are not allowed to make our models feel depressed" then that would be unenforceable since their models can't feel any sort of emotion.

I maintain that it's impossible to be cruel or abusive towards a model, so it's impossible to violate that part of the TOS. If they had instead written "Don't use language towards our models that a reasonable human being would find cruel or abusive if used towards them", then sure... that's enforceable.

No. I don't want there to be a precedent that it's possible to be cruel or abusive towards computer programs. Because then things could quickly spiral out of control.

If Anthropic wanted to say: "Don't use insulting language when interacting with our models", I wouldn't have had a problem with that wording.

Then they should have written it that way.

You can't be cruel or abusive to a computer program. That's like being cruel or abusive towards a rock or a piece of wood or a bucket of water.

I have a wildcard cert from LetsEncrypt and it renews itself automatically and gets distributed to all the machines that need it, also automatically.

I also have a system monitoring my certificates that warns me if they're about to expire in less than 21 days (which should never happen unless the automation has been broken.)

For my OpenVPN certificates, I set up my own CA and created certs that expire in 2044. Since my OpenVPN infrastructure is completely private, that's perfectly acceptable. And I can quickly revoke the certs if need be.

If I, a simple homelab user, can set this up, then surely IT professionals can do the same? I like short cert lifetimes because they pretty much force you to automate cert renewal rather than doing it by hand. A procedure that you do by hand only once every few years is something that's practically guaranteed to screw up.