joe

What court case are you referring to?

Is your stance that if the glasses were made by, say, Sony, no one would care?

I find that very difficult to believe, but would gladly read how you arrived at that conclusion.

The onus of evidencing (or lack thereof) “never sleeping skilled hacking machines” belongs to the AI companies, not me. So far it’s unsubstantiated.

What, hypothetically, would that look like?

We have not met that definition, in my opinion. I don’t believe even the US government is convinced of this. In fact, I’m doubtful anyone is fully convinced.

Based on what? They’re certainly behaving in that manner.

I certainly don’t see any grand scale race between them, militarily speaking.

This should make a global treaty relatively easy, if, as you say, no party actually believes there is a threat.

Where’s the military research programs actually treating this like a priority?

You’d expect to know about them if they existed?

I’m arguing that most the reasons it’s a race are political and economical. My issue is with the word “arms.” I would still say it is not an arms are.

Are the specific semantics important?

I also don’t believe in a grand conspiracy. My belief is closer to cultural stupidity having gone “off the rails.”

You do if you are claiming that the known hacks from AI companies aren’t real, and that LLMs don’t even have that capability. Consider how many people would have to be in on it to sustain that fabrication.

My position isn’t unconventional or all that unreasonable, really. It’s a growing position, per my own observations.

I mean absolutely no disrespect or insult, but an antivaxxer could say that same exact thing. They likewise do not think their stance is unconventional or unreasonable, and, to our sorrow, it is a growing position.

I still say we should worry about ourselves first.

Yes, but there’s a subtle begging the question in this statement. If it is an arms race, “worrying about ourselves” would be continuing on developing AI at a breakneck speed. Only if we assume your stance is correct does that sentence mean slowing down.

Right now, the current trajectory causes harm in people’s lives. I don’t buy the argument that this is acceptable without discussion

Without discussion, or without coming to the conclusion you want? I think there’s quite a bit of discussion.

Quote where I defended it.

I’m sorry, it wasn’t a rhetorical question; I should have made that clear. You brought up HIPAA and spoke about it with some authority so I assumed you’d know.

A phone can be recording audio in a pocket. I assume this would also be a HIPAA violation, so I’m guessing (keyword here) that just having the glasses in the room isn’t a HIPAA violation.

Still not advocating that doctors wear them, in case that needs to be restated.

I ran the report through AI (the irony is not lost on me) and while it’s really very clear this is closer to a manifesto than a unbiased report (not that it claims to be unbiased), I don’t strictly disagree with any specific point.

I have several thoughts, however:

If you don’t think having a legion of skilled hackers that never sleep is a weapon, fine-- hell, even if you tighten your tinfoil hat and reject the claim that they can even do that, if the American government and the Chinese government both believe it has this capability, and they both believe it’s advantage to have the better technology, then this is an arms race. Even if they’re both wrong about the capabilities of AI or the plausibility of AGI, its still an arms race. If the it turned out that atomic bombs weren’t feasible or possible to create, that wouldn’t have made the race to build one less of an arms race, without hindsight.

If not clear, I don’t believe a conspiracy on this scale is a realistic assumption without more data than “I don’t believe it”. It would have to spread across several competing companies throughout most, if not all, of the employees.

Like I said in the first comment, Sanders can threaten all he wants, but I just don’t believe Congress is going to take a risk on “its not really that important” and impose restrictions on AI development. (Side note that no restrictions on AI development is not the same as no restrictions on AI use or deployment.)

I think, as I said before, that we will need a global treaty on pausing development before any one country or company pauses development, or even slows it down.

So I have been told, haha. I stand corrected, for sure.

I am definitely going to read that link, from the start at 1.0, but now right now. Thanks, though.

Accepting your summary (and sorry if I ask a question answered in the link) but what would an “objective technological fact” regarding any technology being an arms race look like? As in, it seems obvious that a technology that can perform complex exploits of software vulnerabilities without human assistance could be used as a weapon-- so why wouldn’t that be a national concern to ensure America has the better technology? How is this different than missiles or bombs, from a technological standpoint?

The technology can certainly be used as a weapon; it can hack systems already, and defend against hacks. This capability will only increase, and logically the better AI affords a strategic benefit. Hence, an arms race.

The rest of your questions aren’t questions or presuppose that AI can’t be used as a weapon.

In case it isn’t obvious, there are experts in this field that aren’t employed by AI.

Are doctors allowed to have their personal smartphone on them in the exam room?

Do doctors and pharmaceutical companies count as experts when discussing vaccines?

That’s a fair point. I’m convinced the Venn diagram overlaps more than I originally assumed.

What expertise are you drawing from to come to this conclusion?

As I said elsewhere, I can differentiate between technology and technology companies. I didn’t realize that was so odd.

I consider the meta glasses new enough that it’s an early-adoption product. Early adopters are usually not tech illiterate. Does that make sense?

The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%.

How would you know this? The chance of them getting caught might be near 0%, but the fact that they’re hidden means that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d only have data for the ones that were found.

Do people not make a distinction between technology companies and the technology itself? I do. I have a fancy (okay, kind of pointless, but nerdy AF) folding pixel phone but I have GrapheneOS on it, because I don’t like giving Google all my data for free. I can find the technology fascinating while distrusting and calling out the technology company.

But it’s even more than just what you say. I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question? I made it pretty clear it was just a philosophical question, so what’s the issue? I get very strong “shut up and hate it with us” vibes. Pretty sad, in my useless opinion.

I think it’s getting close to time for another break from social media.

But hey, I appreciate your thoughtful response, truly.

You misunderstand: Lemmy and Bluesky are my only social networks, I just use them sporatically.

Holy cow, what is wrong with this place?

I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.

“Send data” meaning what? That phrase is suspiciously vague compared to what I said.

Sued for what?