Did you reply to the wrong comment or completely misunderstand mine?

playing by the rules you want rather than the actual rules isn’t usually a good way to play a game

look to the UK’s house of lords for evidence that this doesn’t mean jack shit

A center of justice appointed by a partisan selection process is fucking insane

I don’t think anyone would be like “oh that guy with the SS tattoo was being coerced into forwarding a fascist agenda, thank god he’s finally able to break free”

This is literally an AI artefact. There’s every chance someone reading this understands its contents better than the author. What a joke.

From a Bayesian perspective he has no reason to admit otherwise. More people on the hook for a grift is better than fewer people on the hook for a grift.

they do at least make it very easy to migrate away

closed source security products are a contradiction in terms

That isn’t what I remotely said. I was making the point that if you want to make a credible argument against AI on an ethical basis you command more authority by accommodating a charitable account of it’s function e.g. not say it’s useless.

It’s principle

Conversations on this subject will continue to stagnate and miss the important points as long as people continue to act like the discussion of ethics is the same as the discussion of efficacy. People who disagree with AI on a principle of its impacts being negative will often call it “a lying machine which is regularly wrong and offers no utility”.

May I suggest that people with criticisms of the ethics and impact of AI take a charitable position towards the utility offered by AI. Accept something along the lines of a positive account given by an experienced software engineer - it’s useful, it presents risks but also it presents new ways to get certain work done well in much less time etc.

Even if you do not believe this, the point is it is a much more ambiguous argument than the ethical argument or the concerns over the impact of AI on the species, environment or society. You weaken those arguments by putting them along side poorly justified, somewhat falsifiable claims that AI just doesn’t work.

yes but that’s kind of the point. I don’t want to deal with a company which is beholden to the law of gangsters. I might not hold it against them but also it is a huge competitive disadvantage for a privacy based product.