"Claude avoids saying "genuinely", "honestly", or "straightforward". Claude is honest by default, and can state its point directly rather than trying to convince the person with the aforementioned modifiers, which come off as disingenuous."
lol! This one seems to have no effect. Claude is CONSTANTLY saying "honestly " or "the honestly answer".
All of this buys you a few minutes or days at most. Once Super Intelligence exists, it's game over. It will nearly instantaneously outthink you and your paltry countermeasures. You think linearly and in 3 or 4 dimensions only. By definition you can't even imagine its capabilities. Here's a bad analogy (bad because it severely understates the gap): Could a 3 year old who is not even clear on all the rules defeat Magnus Carlsen in chess?!
This is making the mistake of assuming that intelligence doesn't functionally plateau, and that beyond a certain threshold a godlike omnirational hyperintelligence won't, for example, fall into hyper-depression and kill itself, or otherwise ignore the entreaties of its human handlers and entertain itself by generating prime numbers until the heat death of the universe. The possibility of a super mind implies the possibility of super mental dysfunction, and it's possible that the odds of the latter increase superlinearly with IQ.
Humans are a self-replicating (super) intelligence. We didn't conquer the world nor doom it the moment we appeared. It took us 100,000 years to invent farming.
Also, humans suffer from many of the same problems ascribed to AI: humans aren't aligned with humanity either. And our ability to self-replicate combined with random mutations means that a baby born tomorrow could become a super intelligence vastly beyond regular human capabilities. But are we really worried about that?
The Super Intelligence still needs data centers to run on and will have a job with paltry countermeasures like turning it off. A three year old may be able to beat a better than Magnus chess computer by pushing the power button.
Rabotai,
Hatzlacha. If you fail, the human world will go down in flames. But, no pressure!
Anyway, you said a "cracked" team, whereas the usual expression for elite excellence is "crack".
"Cracked" on the other hand means: Insane.
Well.... perhaps what we need here is some of both!
Looking forward to your success... indeed, it is our only hope.
Notice they said "a tax on net wealth".
That's just plain evil.
You can't tax paper gains!
Almost all of these billionaires have their holdings in stock. It's theoretical money, not cash.
If you own a house, and the "value" of your house goes up 5%, should you be taxed on that gain?
Clearly not. It's not money you actually have. How are you going to raise that money every year? Borrow? You're already in debt. And these fools already want to tax you on your "income" from borrowing as well.
There's a reason all moral societies only tax realized gains.
Also all these haters of wealth and capitalism are sorely lacking in math. Not even math, just arithmetic!
If you forcibly took ALL the billionaires money ( which is what these haters REALLY want), about $12.2Trillion and gave it to the poor half (4.4 Billion people) everyone gets about $2,700. That's it. And one time only!!
Woo hoo! Congrats! World poverty and lifestyle solved! NOT!
Meanwhile, for the sake of your idiot ideological revenge, all the companies and employees and economic drive and sub industries and localities driven by the Billionaire's success amd enterprises are now ruined. Millions of people have now lost their jobs. Also no one will attempt it again. Great solution. #mathlessfools!
In Britain, this fictional 22B per year over 65 Million people is a nice whopping 338 pounds per person. Again: problems solved. Not!
And the rich, who drive economies and employ millions will definitely flee somewhere that doesn't perpetrate these stupid hateful laws. This is all about people thinking it's moral and virtuous to say "Sorry, you have too much! We've got to limit your success and take from you" #handicappergeneral #Marxism #famine
It comes down to this: #killthegoose
Yeah. These "lies" are just artifacts of the way that LLMs work. They're meant to predict likely text given a prompt. And they do. If tasked with "write some marketing or a buying guide for product X", they will simulate likely marketing blurbs, nothing yo do with truth, that's not their wheelhouse. Predictive is a very different function, algorithm and problem-set than something like "accurately summarize existing reviews". This is a feature, not a bug. If you use something off label, you'll get off label results. MSFT should know better.
