This one was more of a gangstalking delusion. The victim was told that there were three-letter agencies surveilling him because he was too close to some deep secret.

Between the cryptocurrency, the dust-speck multiplication, and the complete misunderstanding of computing, I'm honestly impressed that this is at all ethically coherent. But she does seem to care, even if her facts are all wrong. I suppose that it's hard to avoid sneering Robin Hanson if one has any ethics at all. Top comment is my choice sneer:

I think this post is directionally correct, extremely important, and also kind of waffling and unhinged (though I do get that some topics are inherently hard to be hinged about, and I appreciate the effort).

I don't think she's using GPT in the comments. Quoting from her comment on one of her posts:

The things I'm saying are roughly (1) slavery is bad, (2) if AI are sapient and being made to engage in labor without pay then it is probably slavery, and (3) since slavery is bad and this might be slavery, this is probably bad, and (4) no one seems to be acting like it is bad and (5) I'm confused about how this isn't some sort of killshot on the general moral adequacy of our entire civilization right now.

(2) has a big "if" in there, but otherwise yeah, makes sense. I think it rhymes with my post on this from last year:

Nobody wants to admit that we only care whether robots aren’t human because we mistreat the non-humans in our society and want permission to mistreat robots as well. Bring this topic up amongst most beneficiaries of the current AI summer, or those addicted to chatting with a BERT, and you’ll get a faceful of apologies about capitalism and productivity; bring it up amongst skeptics or sneerers and you’ll be mocked for taking the field of AI with any sincerity or seriousness.

I was confused too, but then I conceptualized capitalism and the sheer hatred lurking within human hearts. Humans are gleefully horrible towards each other. Our civilization isn't morally adequate. I guess it is cool to learn that somebody addicted to ChatGPT can still perceive the issue; I was too cynical. I also put Bryson 2009, "Robots Should Be Slaves" on my reading list, which I surely will not regret.

Gemini killed someone, allegedly, according to a new lawsuit. I'm linking to a dramatic reading of Gemini's output so that you can imagine what it might have been like for the victim. I'm no longer trying to post these to Lobsters; pushcx has made it clear that he thinks of these court cases as flamebait, tech news, calls to brigade, and general outrage farming. Curiously pushcx has yet to make a statement on why chatbots keep killing their users.

Found a remarkable ad-hoc anti-LLM-product manifesto on the orange site. As is tradition, tag yourselves; I'm "believ[ing that] there's a consistent pattern of cognitive decline in the pro-LLM folks."

These doofuses never actually think through their thought experiments. Quoting from a dead thread half a year ago, where he was downvoted but not yet identified:

In a universe where all things are transforming all the time it seems pretty fair to ask the question: "What IS IT about humanity that we want to preserve and expand?" If the answer is "23 chromosomes, 2 eyes, 5-6 feet tall, etc" that seems pretty shallow.

Okay, but first surely he can recognize that humanity is already multicultural and multispecies? Like, in a non-specious sense, we've incorporated many mammals, birds, plants, fungi, etc. into our daily lives and can't really separate them out at this point. Sure, there's some ineffable and beautiful relationship between humans in general which we want to preserve, but before worrying about whether robots should join in, we should first notice that there's already an expansion of that relationship to include e.g. face mites, and there's no sense in which face mites are a Worthy Successor to whom we should cede all managerial decisions. (I was gonna say "cats", but I know plenty of y'all would rather have a cat in charge than a human, and you're not wrong.)

Patreon CEO Jack Comte uploaded a visionary CEO talk about AI and artists and the future. I don't fully understand why they needed an interpretative dance section, or multiple people playing synthesizers, but I guess AI is good for artists, but also bad for artists, but also a big opportunity for artists, but also taking opportunities away from artists, but also? Also lots of bragging about how many millions of followers he has.

As reported by local Wyoming paper Cowboy State Daily, Meta's closed-loop water-cooling system bred a metal-resistant bacterium and now the municipal wastewater system has refused to accept Meta's wastewater. To be crisp, Cupriavidis, which literally means "loves to eat copper" "lives on copper", already was metal-resistant; this wasn't a de novo adaptation. Edit: used wrong root for translation, whoops.

Yet another point in favor of evaporative cooling. Standing water, recycled water, and grey water are too complex to treat as recyclable. Also another point against cheaply-designed rush-built datacenters.

This self-own from the comments is amazing:

Suppose you are a selfish CDT agent, and I am considering whether to hire you to clean my house. Once you're inside my house, you might steal my stuff instead of cleaning my house. Suppose that California Labour Laws require that I pay you up-front and I know I have no chance of getting my money or stuff back.
Say your preference order is "Steal" > "Do the job" > "Don't get hired".

This is a racist dog-whistle which attacks ESL housekeepers; this sort of meme's frustratingly common on the West Coast.

The third option is to exit the market. The underlying issue is that, regardless of how much effort one puts into cultivating non-criminal customers, VPN services will appear to attract criminals, and the optics alone is sufficient to dramatically limit and shape the pool of customers. Source: I operated some least-authority encrypted storage (I provably can't read private customer data) from like 2016-2019 and my peer group thought I was facilitating criminals. Ironically, I left that peer group because they wouldn't stop platforming Bitcoiners.

Complementing sibling, consider Google Books. This is where the question first arose: if one puts a book through a scanner, non-destructively, then surely they have made a digital copy of the book? There's the related question: if the scanner destroys the book, then that surely means no copy? The bounds of this were tested with the concept of CDL, which courts did rule against in Hachette v. Internet Archive; they said that CDL is clearly copying. But they also said in HathiTrust that digital preservation is transformative. So preserving is possibly fair but copying is probably infringing; in general one can have a private library but they can't copy it out to other people.

Hopefully it makes a bit more sense from that perspective. Copyright's still stupid as fuck, though. Previously, on Awful, I made a prediction:

I do think that the resulting incentive for model-trainers is not what anybody wants, though; Google Books is still settled and Kadrey didn’t get updated, so model-trainers now merely must purchase second-hand books at market price and digitize them, just like Google has been doing for decades. At worst, this is a business opportunity for a sort of large private library which has pre-digitized its content and sells access for the purpose of training models.

I'm reminded of the aesthetic definition of fascism: an artistic movement is fascist when it has no substance beyond its aesthetic presentation. Most artists want to express some sort of cultural belief, communicating it to their audience. However, fascists do not sincerely endorse any meme whatsoever, because of their need for cultural purity and their inability to establish a rubric by which their national identity cleanly separates from the society which hosts them; rather, a fascist movement predictably sheds memes, one by one, as their usefulness for advancing the movement is overcome by the fascist's revulsion at any sort of cultural sincerity.

Thanks for sharing. This has a lot in common with e.g. hyperborean or tradwife communities, I feel. Not in the specific memes as such, but in the utter lack of sincere existence behind them.

This is tougher than it sounds, at least in the USA. This 2018 law-review article fully works two examples for Pastafarians, focusing on Holy Headgear (pasta strainers, colanders, or salad spinners, worn as hats) and Friday. Their opinion is fairly nuanced because employers are traditionally given a wide range of options for proffering labor to employees without infringing on employee expression. They conclude that the main issue with Pastafarian claims isn't anything to do with the sincerity of religious belief, but the specific nature of asking to never work another Friday again. Fridays are too much of a request, but Holy Headgear is probably fine. The prophet wrote some commentary on this article:

Talking to Mr. Dowdy a bit, I don’t know his exact opinion on whether Pastafarians should be granted allowances to dress as Pirates and take every Friday off of work… I believe the larger point of his article is that courts should not be deciding what is and what is not a True religion and it’s not their place to maintain a list of protected religious activities that are deemed acceptable in the workplace.

Flipping things around, employers have been hesitant to embrace or endorse my Pastafarianism even when I enthusiastically point out e.g. that I can work during the winter solstice. They know that it would lead to requests for religious respect. BTW, somebody's surely gonna be a little snot and say something like "but Pastafarianism isn't a real religion, it's a parody." First, they're missing the point: employers think religious complaints about AI are bullshit, just like they think Pastafarianism is bullshit, which is why they're not predisposed to honor such complaints. Second, they're missing the point: I don't need their permission to eat noodles every Friday, but I do need an employer's permission to not be scheduled to work.