The intent to communicate particular ideas is actually important to the writing. If you have a lot of well put together words with relatively low intentionality behind it, what you have is something that is very effective at wasting your time. If I want to waste my time I'd rather be playing videogames.
Unironically, for a small enough business, 10% of revenue is cheaper than figuring out what the rules are and following them. If I'm doing $30 worth of sales to Malta, it's cheaper to pay them $3, basically regardless of what Malta-specific regulations there are.
The line is between processes you can stop by hauling someone into court and coercing them into stopping things, and ones you can't. Think of a classical computer virus that infects machines and uses the compute and communications to infect other machines - no matter who you haul into court, you have to go and remove it from every involved machine in order to make it stop doing things.
This category of "rogue AIs" are essentially just computer viruses that infect machines by paying to rent them and uses their compute and communications to do various economic and/or criminal activities to get more money to pay to rent machines.
That's because they are extraordinarily suitable as covert torture devices. When government officials use them to inflict pain, they do not leave physical evidence and the only video evidence from filming the interaction is how long hands were on the detainee.
Couldn’t put my finger on it, that’s what it is. Unlike a baton or pepper spray, this leaves no marks and has no distinct visual signature when being used. I bet these (or more likely AliExpress knockoffs) become really popular with club bouncers.
I wonder if the device logs each activation like a Taser does?
Intent to access a computer would have to be proven for that section of the CFAA to be relevant. The shakedown would be covered under subsection 7, governing communicating threats of computer damage or unauthorized access with the intent to extort.
That actually is how the law works. You can read the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 and double check, but these felonies all require knowingly or intentionally accessing a computer etc. These aren't strict liability statutes - the government must prove mens rea to a jury in order to get a conviction at trial.
I was specifically referring to the fact that HuggingFace cannot chose not to litigate, because litigation doesn't depend on the victim's opinion - prosecution of felonies is imperative to the authorities (whether they actually fulfil their role is another question these days, sadly…)
But anyway, I don't think our laws currently have the right vocabulary to describe an AI agent committing a crime, because intent doesn't apply to a computer program. The closest I can think of is neglect by the computer programs human initiator, who should have taken the steps necessary to prevent the program from causing harm. But I'm pretty sure these questions will be subject to a lot of professional discussion in the coming decades anyway.
Oftentimes the process is the punishment. They ruin your life for two or more years even if they ultimately don't get a conviction, you still suffered for two years. And there's certainly enough evidence to start the process.
The issue is not a localized part of any particular piece of prose, so being hard to articulate is unsurprising. Even the most egregious of LLMisms are little more than known-likely crutches that the statistics spit out in a sweet spot that gets noticed without being so frequent as to get RLHFed out of the model.
When you speed read, you can grab the words off the page faster than you can understand and fully process the information conveyed by the text. How much time you have or want to spend re-reading or thinking about what you've read is quite obvious. There's a stark experiential difference between reading an informationally-dense passage and one that spends a lot of time rephrasing things, using LLMisms to restate concepts, adding in extra connecting phrases, etc.
If your reading speed is limited by how quickly you can subvocalize the words to yourself, this is significantly less obvious. Unless the passage is dense enough to require multiple read-throughs at conversational reading pace or vapid enough to be boring, you're going to feel done with the text at roughly the same time. Speed readers do a lot more re-reading and varying of reading speed, and that is going to correlate pretty hard with information density.
Worker pessimism over technological unemployment risk is enough to explain profit growth via wage suppression with no need to invoke productivity gains, and AIUI these sorts of indicators have been leading on AI capabilities and adoption.
reply