It would be epic if the DDoS was from a swarm of KnightOS infected calculators. Even more if they were able to do it because Drew made a workable network stack. lol
And this time it's not only driven by larger media organizations, but also by random people who now have a chance to propagate their views from decreased barriers to entry.
I believe it wasn't only journalistic gatekeeping that prevented this for so long, but simply a lack of affordance for willing parties to do those things. High-speed Internet has made everything so much easier.
My feelings about the rise of streaming video are also conflicted. It has given us high-quality longform content on topics that hadn't been covered before, but all those other people's passions and hobbies take up way too much time if you as a consumer become deeply invested in them (not even counting the conspiracy genre and its implications). It's easy to do partially because YouTube facilitates that, but I think in the end people want to consume all this information in the end, for some definition of "want". And dozens of 6-hour streams of the latest game or another will keep being uploaded every day.
And there's this other thing that I keep coming back to. Someone I know was really into this engineer creating fake Apple product boxes that recorded thieves stealing them and being glitterbombed. They found it hilarious, but I was sort of confounded. It was the conversion of a few people's bad choices into entertainment and ad revenue, coated over with the intellectual sheen of detailed makerspace engineering diagrams and wit mixed with a moral high ground. Though what the thieves did was not right, there was something smug and passive aggressive about the entire thing that rubbed me the wrong way. And this was presented as just a humble guy with engineering experience creating his content and getting people interested in STEM. Anyone has the capability to do this sort of thing now, not just a media machine with questionable motives. It's just regular, driven people with questionable motives now.
I think what you're describing ("the long tail") has been a phenomenon for a decade or so - tons of youtubers, tons of bloggers, tons of twitter personalities, etc. I see it as a good thing, people definitely want to consume it.
What's been bothering is the layers of skimmers that are dominating all those mediums - the top youtube channels now are repeaters, the top tiktok channels are fake accounts copying the content, there's layers of "reactors" (they call themselves that) that add absolutely no value, but polute the whole timeline, and so on. This is mostly a newer phenomenon - as if the internet is quickly turning into a multimedia version of the mail system - it'll snuff out actual creativity/usefulness and slowly decay into spam spam spam spam.
Reminds me, I played Genshin Impact once and I was struck by how brief the opening cutscenes were. Given it was a fantasy epic I sort of expected a bit more introduction to the characters in the first 30 minutes. But I think that was because of my conditioning on console games.
It makes logical sense. The longer the intro cutscene took, the more people would just exit out before the action could take place, the more money they lost on IAPs. So fast-tracking the player to beating things up within 2-4 minutes is critical. The longer story cutscenes can take over later. There are probably hard metrics to back this up somewhere.
I think this is the main problem that will increasingly come into focus.
OpenAI has one of the fastest-growing software releases in history. It's kind of insane how after a year this is already starting to alter people's communication styles. Technologists will have to start asking "why do people still insist on doing this", even with all the discussion about incorrect information coming up. Well, because they wanted to, they could, and nobody has told them "no" yet.
I hope the consequences of such a large-scale software rollout are considered next time. If you have to stop and stay "we should educate people about the misuses of this," then some proportion of the population won't be educated or reject being educated outright and do what they want. In my view, the only thing preventing people from throwing around ChatGPT suggestions in inappropriate contexts is... not giving them ChatGPT. To remain naive to the possibilities lest they get excited and unwittingly unleash them on everyone, regardless of true their intentions - as had been the status quo up until a few years ago. Draconian legislation outlawing GPUs or LLMs are more divisive a solution than the general public just not being aware of the possibilities of LLMs.
I know this is unrealistic, however. "Time for people to embrace the tech and move on" has become a thought-terminating cliche. As a programmer, I'm lost as to what to say or do about this.
I've seen accusations and suspicion of HN commentators giving ChatGPT responses. Accusing someone of using ChatGPT here has become something more nuanced than an insult, but still sows discord. If it's coming to this, I think it is worth examining for what purpose we build the things we do.
At first I thought this was the 48GB card that had been rumored for a while, but it turns out it's just a sanctions-compliant RTX 6000 Ada for export to China.
> "That's not productive," Raimondo said. "I am telling you if you redesign a chip around a particular cutline that enables them to do AI, I am going to control it the very next day."
So basically she's saying "if you do exactly as much as the rules allow, I'll change the rules to not allow that". That sounds like the general sort of thing that tends to end up with whichever government agency did that being on the losing end of a lawsuit?
Well what she is saying is if you intentionally attempt to circumvent the intent of the regulation they will adjust the regulation to continue to bring about the intent. An awful lot of law and regulation isn’t cut and dry like a computer program but is intent driven. Sounds like Nvidia understood the intent but is trying to knowingly circumvent the intent by being minimally compliant. They can sue but it won’t go their way, and the government could move against them hard for willful non compliance.
I thought the performance thresholds they put in the law were supposed to express just that intent (i.e sell only second rate GPUs to China). If the real intent was to stop all GPU sales to China, why doesn't the law say so?
> knowingly circumvent the intent by being minimally compliant. They can sue but it won’t go their way, and the government could move against them hard for willful non compliance.
In the eyes of the court, there's no "minimally compliant". If they are compliant, they are compliant.
If the agency keeps moving the goalposts to "clarify" intent because it was not sufficiently clear initially, that's on them, but it's also not a failing of Nvidia.
> In the eyes of the court, there's no "minimally compliant". If they are compliant, they are compliant.
Right, so if there is a new export ban then nvidia will be in violation and the agency just clarified that it will create such a ban if nvidia makes it necessary.
The cost of trying to play cat and mouse would be on nvidia loosing lots of R&D time and money and not the agency that only has to copy paste the product details into what is probably a preexisting form.
I’d also note a lot of regulation is not enforced at court, but by the regulator. They get to decide. You can appeal it to a court, but courts also grant the regulators pretty good latitude to interpret behavior as willful non compliance even when it’s done literally compliant but to the extent it enables and facilitates the specific outcome the regulation is intended to prevent. Technologists always have a hard time accepting the idea laws and regulations aren’t absolute or formulaic. Judgement and common sense can also be used and often is in situations where there is an intentional evasiveness.
"We put a speed bump at the dangerous crossing to prevent accidents, but they made a car that has more suspension so that they can still cross it at almost the same speed."
They tried the speed bump, they did the suspension thing, now it’s time to reduce the speed limit and install a traffic camera.
Regulation is always like this. I work in a lot of highly regulated spaces and my work deals with it an awful lot as it’s sensitive stuff. This is how it works. They always try to do the less restrictive language first and once some jackass starts trying to do literalist stuff to circumvent the intent the thumb screws come out.
Why do we end up with absurd overly restrictive regulations? Jackasses who fully knowingly try to circumvent the intent by cutlining the edges of the language. Most regulators try to make the rules loose enough to allow for things they didn’t intend to squash that are in line with the intent not being squashed.
In this case it was obvious what the intent was. They had no intention of punishing gamers in China or whatever other edges. Right or wrong they didn’t want.high end AI enabling GPUs sold to China, so they tried to propose something that captured a looser definition and held it up and said “ok folks this isn’t overly restrictive just remember why we did this and don’t be a jackass.”
Then, of course, they went and were a flagrant jackass thumbing their nose st their regulator. First, that’s just a stupid idea. Second, it’s why we can’t have nice stuff.
> Why do we end up with absurd overly restrictive regulations?
Beacuse instead of making the law, "go 3 mph beacuse I'm fearful of what will happen" fearful people install a speed bump so they don't get called a totalitarian. Then they get mad when people don't go 3 mph, even though that isn't the law, beacuse you know, they are totalitarian.
We aren't trying to prevent China from having <x> number of CUDA cores but we are trying to prevent an outcome with a fuzzy guess at what hardware specifications would prevent the outcome.
Continuing the traffic analogy: The goal is to prevent accidents. To do this you enact speed limits and then someone causes an accident while obeying the speed limit.
The goal is to not strengthen China's military. To do this you enact limits on GPU tensor cores and then China uses these to improve their military.
I think the solution might be to err on the side of extreme caution. I'd export only what is necessary for inference but retain the hardware to train models while also releasing free "Made in America" models to the world.
They are so dangerous they can't have video cards, we know beacuse the same people who encouraged western companies to go offshore to China for decades told us so.
The problem USG is dancing around is that this policy is probably not legal if you laid it out in the plain text, regardless of whether it's strategically desirable. If tomorrow the USG came out and said "the goal is to deny china access to these tools, prevent their ability to train their own models, etc" there would be a case in the WTO for an undeclared trade war and they would probably win, followed by retaliatory sanctions from other WTO members against the US.
AI as a technology isn't inherently military regardless of whether it has military applications - just like the computer isn't inherently military. At most it is an intensely dual-use technology, and honestly just like the computer that is completely underplaying just how radical a shift it's going to bring. It is a neutral tech that has broad applications across all areas of computing, the framing of it as being a "military technology" is kinda inherently and deliberately misleading, other than it being a box that the USG is notionally allowed to regulate.
And you can't just arbitrarily decide who "gets access to the computer" (or some other foundationally-disruptive technology) and who doesn't, in a global interconnected economy. This isn't the iron curtain where you have spheres of influence with no interdependence and you can bar the gates, that ship sailed with globalization and the 90s neoliberal "end of history" consensus. China has pushed through to multipatterned 7nm DUV nodes already, which is quite sufficient for solving the military side of the problem, if the US insists on making it a military problem.
Again though the real problem is this is an undeclared trade war, and the USG could not legally do the things it's trying to do if it just came out and admitted the de-facto regulatory standard it was actually applying, or the overall motives. Putting one over on a trade partner is not a valid reason for denying access to a foundationally-changing technology, according to the treaties the US has signed.
On the other hand... try and stop us. But the rest of the world is not deceived either, just like they're not deceived about any of the US's other realpolitik moves. we're doing it because we can, and because we think it's strategically desirable to stomp down at this moment of foundationally disruptive change.
If you mean banana republic to mean literally every government ever throughout all of history then you’re right. Regulations are imperfect, laws are interpreted, and we don’t live in technopurist nirvana where everything is a literally interpreted smart contract.
What I’m describing is how well functioning regulation occurs in practice. It’s messy and it does depend on people listening to the intent, conforming to the specifics, and not trying to get away with the opposite of the intent by minimally conforming. The fact that it’s not some idealized system escapes no one as undesirable, but at least in the 10,000 years we’ve been working on laws and regulation and governance this is as good as it’s gotten.
The federal government foreign policy is giving full bright scholarships to the best of the best Chinese students so that they get PhDs fully paid at the best US tech universities. And then kicking them out for loosing a lottery 3 times and sending them back to China so that they have no choice but working in products and companies that directly compete to the US.
Selling or not selling tech to China is the least of the US problems.
it's weird because the business purpose already streamlines products for capitalism and not some hard limit on resources and regulations try to do the same but with different inputs but the same artificial boundaries.
> She said traditionally Commerce drew a "cutline" and companies like Nvidia would create a new chip "just below" that line ... "That's not productive," Raimondo said
That seems ridiculous at first glance? I'm assuming a "cutline" here is what the maximum performance is allowed to be, and asking companies to add in a fuzzy "extra" bit there, instead of building right to the line is bizarre?
They want them to self-enforce the administrations decision to not enable Chinese AI work. I don’t think they want them to be taking the Chinese professional market into account at all, thus the snarky statement.
This kind of lawmaking seems obvious insane to logical programmer types, but it happens regularly in government. They don't have to implement anything in code, right?
Another example is anti-money laundering laws. They drew a cutline at $10k cash per deposit, so of course criminals started depositing $9,999 at a time. The legislative answer was to say that avoiding the $10k limit is a new crime called "structuring". So what's the actual limit then? There isn't one, you just have to not seem too suspicious. Attempting to follow the law whilst also using a lot of cash is itself a crime.
The other fun one is the suspicious activity reports banks are required to file if a customer does something, er, suspicious. What that means isn't defined anywhere. But eventually the regulators advised that knowing SARs exist is itself suspicious, so merely asking if the bank has filed a SAR on you can trigger the filing of a SAR on you.
This is already inevitable. China is on a mad rush to gain technological independence. They've already succeeded with in most industries and semiconductors and aviation are two of a small amount that remain temporarily out of China's grasp.
Anything that senator does won't change the trendline of the inevitable.
I believe it when I see it. Lot's of companies in the field now and if I need to take a bet I would say Intel has way better chances to succeed with Gaudi than small vendor x.
Because it's not just a chip, it's everything else too. There were 2 startups in Boston, may be 500 meters apart, doing optical computing. 4 years and there is still no product. "everything else" is a lot. It's hardware and software. Just brilliant idea is not enough.
That's why I provided the demo link, see the tokens/second. They are running LLaMA 70B at about 260T/s without quantization. This is the fastest LLaMA2 model
They are already succeeding, it's a matter of time.
They can already build functional smartphones without relying on Taiwan at all. It's not a huge technology leap from a smartphone CPU to a consumer GPU. Design and engineering leap, sure but nothing a dozen PhDs can't solve in a few years.
Centrally planned economies don't suffer too badly in Strategic Industries, especially not when trying to catch up to the free countries, as long as there's at least some level of capitalism involved. The goals are very clear and they can steal tech quite easily, so the lack of incentives to take risks and innovate don't matter. The USSR went from agricultural backwater to nuclear power with its own space station quite fast, largely by stealing tech using ideological true believers.
But of course things started to fall apart from there. As the true nature of the USSR became clear to westerners, ideologically motivated spies started to dry up and the KGB was forced to pay large bribes to get information. They focused on military info, and so their economy started to fall behind in other areas. By the end of the 1980s the gap in quality of life became so huge that Yeltsin famously put his head in his hands and cried after visiting an American supermarket.
China is somewhat centrally planned but more capitalist than the USSR was, and doesn't suffer so badly from the underproduction of consumer goods. Some people claim China is really just a capitalist dictatorship that cosplays as communist by this point, which isn't quite right; it's somewhere in the middle.
But the idea that they won't be able to catch up in advanced tech is just wrong. There are tons of patriotic Chinese people with access to high tech firms in the USA and these days you don't even need them, it's sufficient to just hack networks and steal documents in bulk. Sooner or later they will be the only country in the world that's technologically fully self sufficient. It will just have involved making enemies of everyone else.
There are two areas where they could really start to suffer after that:
1. Erratic decision making from the top that screw things up. Already a big problem for them.
2. If the west is able to properly tighten up corporate opsec and the flow of stealable ideas dries up.
Of course, China has lots of smart people who could come up with great ideas and firms if allowed, the prevalence of hard working Chinese in western companies shows that. But that involves taking risks in the expectation of reward. Look at what happened to Jack Ma. China doesn't reward success, it punishes it. The Great Firewall also makes everything way harder for them.
>U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, speaking in an interview with Reuters on Monday, said Nvidia "can, will and should sell AI chips to China because most AI chips will be for commercial applications."
>"What we cannot allow them to ship is the most sophisticated, highest-processing power AI chips, which would enable China to train their frontier models," she added.
>Raimondo said she spoke a week ago to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and he was "crystal clear. We don't want to break the rules. Tell us the rules, we'll work with you."
In plain English, that means Nvidia can, will, and should sell products to China below the arbitrary line the US and China have set for the kabuki theater.
Anyone who expects these sanctions to actually damage Chinese ambitions or progress or expects the US to win this cold war are either ignorant or delusional. China won this conflict before it even began.
Sad China mythos propaganda. They haven't won much, and are quickly following suit of other past economies like Japan. Conversion from pure industrialization to advanced economy is hard and the slow down is practically inevitable, especially when China started trying to push antiAmerican geopolitical aspirations againsts their neighbors in the China Sea.
Th only winner here is Mexico who looks to be the onshore of choice out of China supply chains.
I find it fascinating that the US government is being openly hostile like that. Surely they just realize that this will be held against the US for a long time?
> Surely they just realize that this will be held against the US for a long time?
Who can? There are plenty of things people around the world hold against the US. It's not like anyone can actually do something about it and that's all that really matters.
> It's not like anyone can actually do something about it and that's all that really matters.
In the long term they can, by using the US dollar less and less. Which is already happening. One day the US government will wake up unable to print money to pay for things from other countries, and the economy will collapse.
Many of these countries though, finance theirs debts and pay them back in USD, simply because the USD is still the de facto currency in global financial markets.
I believe that's an entirely different issue, tbh. There is no grand strategy or conspiracy behind dedollarization, just a path of least resistance for free and open trade.
I don't like assuming that someone is an idiot, but besides "shitting where you eat" the only explanation I can think of is that someone is betting on WWIII and that it will end as profitability as WWI and WWII.
People who live in the US are usually less aware of how a lot of the international community perceives them as a bully. His view is very common and he finds it completely foreign that the US is even perceived this way.
A lot of people in the US view the US as the heroic peace keeper, and that all actions the US takes against China are for "world security" rather then an attempt to keep the top spot as the #1 economic and military super power.
It's weird because while there is freedom of the press in the US, many US citizens are still strangely misinformed and irrationally patriotic.
I'm not even clear about the mechanism at work here but there is a sort of strange form of control of information at play here. You can sort of sense it in US news. It's genius really how the media can be controlled despite amendments in place ensuring freedom of the press.
For some reason I had a feeling they were referring to something different.
Anyway, I am aware of the whole bubble thing, although I don't think its unique for the US, at least no entirely.
It's quite similar to countries with their own sovereign media. That's why people often think that those other guys hand out talking points to their journalists, when it's actually all about hiring people with good political sense, who feel "the flow" and know what is politically correct.
The difference is that people with 3 digit IQ typically know how dive into foreign media (or even passively exposed to it), while people in the US dominated part of the world just kinda don't even care.
I wonder if it was different when the Fairness Doctrine was in place - probably not, cross-cultural fairness seems like something too complicated to scale well.
News media are private businesses. Control the flow of money or buy the business and you control the narrative.
It's well known that advertising dollars influence decisions, and it's also well known that western news media is owned by only a few huge companies that often are advertising subsidiary companies on the same platform.
Perhaps when China stops their massive human rights abuses and begins to act like a mature world leader, but until then, its turning out to be another 2 bit authoritarian regime who cannot hold a candle to what the U.S.A achieves on the world stage.
> Perhaps when China stops their massive human rights abuses
How do you figure it's not empty propaganda and that it's actually more massive compared to the US "well that's just life" incidents?
Because it's definitely propaganda (even if not an empty one). It's no coincidence that it ramped up when China became an economic competitor to the US. Even the "Uyghurs camps" narrative surged in media just right along with ICE detention camps scandal. And given how muslims were treated by the US after 9/11, there is definitely zero moral high-ground.
Cracking down on dissidents? Capitol riots challenge was failed miserably and was hardly handled any differently than what gets so criticized in "authoritarian" countries.
> cannot hold a candle to what the U.S.A achieves on the world stage.
Jokes about participating in wars all over the planet aside, what did the US actually achieve on the WORLD stage? Not it's influence on European neighborhood and the small corner of North Atlantics, but the WORLD. Cuz IMO, the world is totally burning right now.
It's really hard to figure out what you're implying specifically when you talk in slogans and manifestos, instead of like a normal down to earth person. But I can't shake the feeling that you kinda treat the rest of the world as ochlos to American demos, with an inherent supremacism similar to how 20 century commies went about their global revolution that no one had asked them for.
American exceptionalism is nothing new, and it isn't uncommon. However the approach that you are using to attempt to break through it is not going to be effective in the slightest.
For one, you can call literal propaganda for what it is, but propaganda isn't necessarily wrong on the facts. Pointing out that 'you didn't care about issue X until you did' is not going to get the self-reflection you hope for, because at the end of the day, the propaganda is pointing out a message that cannot be countered since what it points out is true.
Second, anything to do with 'one of your parties did a bad thing' is counterproductive and contrasting the legal ramifications of the riots is not even close to being on par -- the USA has a functioning (if sometimes overhanded and racist) justice system and the fact that the offending parties were prosecuted publicly and not taken to a secret camp and shot shows that even if the perps didn't get their just deserts, it was all above board and it was effective.
'The world' is, again, a dead end. You absolutely cannot win an argument that the USA was somehow not the stabilizing military factor in the west and didn't provide a large portion of the major world stage level achievements since the end of WWII. If it weren't for the $$$trillions/yr on patrolling oceans in carriers, flying sorties, launching sats, and just generally being the hall monitor and the bully, then a whole lot of things would be incredibly different. You can argue for better or worse, but hardly any American would argue that it is for worse, if they honestly accept that they like their modern lifestyle.
That's about how far high beams shine, so it's totally acceptable for cops to give people speeding tickets for doing 55 in a 55 at night with high beams on?
• Use fog lights if you have them.
• Never use your high-beam lights. Using high beam lights causes
glare, making it more difficult for you to see what’s ahead of
you on the road.
”
If you create a rule to accomplish a broader goal then this is a terrible argument because you end up getting rules lawyered and then you have to add sub-rules and sub-sub-rules and then exceptions to those and etc. Eventually you end up enforcing things that are non-sensical just because someone used a loop-hole once and you have to plug it. No one thinks this is a good outcome.
In your metaphor the town wants safe roads -- they don't care if someone is going 54 or 56, and the enforcement should reflect that. If you really think that anyone going over 55.1 should be pulled over no matter what, and that people driving with a blindfold on going 54.9 should not, then I don't know what to say .
Statistics show the least accidents occur at up to 15% over the speed limit, because that is the speed the good drivers go.
I would fully support a speed limit system based on driving skill. However, since we have a purely speed based system those driving the limit should not get tickets.
First of all, I was disagreeing with the metaphor on premise, and thus that it is a 'purely speed based system', because it is not. Emergency vehicles can drive faster, and you can argue with a cop or in court that you had a good reason to drive faster and be relieved of the offense.
If you really believe in only 'the letter of the law' then why do we have courts? It isn't just to determine guilt or innocence, since only some of the courts do that and only some of the time.
Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We've had to warn you about this before, so please don't do it again.
Also, please don't post flamewar comments. You went way over the line here, even apart from the personal attack. You're as welcome here as anyone else is, but we need you to follow the rules and post in the intended spirit. I realize that's harder when representing a minority view, but there's not much we can do about that—we have to apply the rules more or less evenly.
What we don’t understand is why someone would spend so much time on HN complaining about “westerners” and lobbing ad hominems at anyone critical of China.
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
The Adventures of Cookie & Cream had dynamic splitscreen based on progress through the level, and that was released in 2000.
Plus I believe there was an (uncommon?) feature where two players could share a single controller to control each character (two shoulder buttons and an analog stick).
(Even with an Action Replay I remember that game being frustrating as hell.)
It's like imagine there's this force of nature that grants people astounding insight on all knowledge of the universe but causes the suicide rate to skyrocket because nobody is meant to handle that much information at once.
But when asked what people do about their innate insight they can only respond "Oh, I can only manage my finances telepathically and none of my friends have time to speak mouth to mouth anymore, their mental energy is always focused on something now."
And when asked about alternatives, "Oh, we can't just make it go away. We were born with it from the start and everyone relies on it to stay connected. And my children are given assignments where they exercise their PSI so they're obligated to use it. Then they spend a lot of time playing mind games after school with their friends. It will probably never go away, and I accept that."
I'm starting to think that successive generations will both live and die by advancing technology. It's a runaway force that no single organization is in control of, and that we cannot study the long-term effects of until everyone relies on it daily.
And just think about how many tech dependencies we don't have yet but are itching to give ourselves. A generation from now this could repeat itself when people generally consider LLMs useful enough to integrate into every fridge and ATM. Who will make that decision? It seems like when a few people make that decision for others, an acceptance loop begins where the tech is normalized over years until we stop asking ourselves how we got here at all. It no longer makes sense to wake up and see that you don't have a smartphone sitting on your nightstand anymore.
I don't know if it's the same "noise", but for a period of months I used an extension that replaced the New Tab page. When you do this with Firefox it pops up a notification the first new tab you open each session stating "your new tab has changed, keep settings?" I mean, I installed the extension to change the new tab page, so presumably I wouldn't need to be asked a second time.
The noisy part was this notification steals focus so you can't type into the search bar immediately, you have to hit escape or click out to gain focus again. And the popup kept appearing until I realized you had to specifically press "yes, keep changes" on the notification to get it to stop (usually I canceled out of it reflexively to do actually important things). If you just hit Escape or tried to use the URL bar it would come back next session and steal focus again.
It sounds like something minor but the idea of stealing focus to re-confirm a change you already confirmed is a mild source of headaches, and not necessary in my view. Not to mention, this process would repeat itself for every Firefox installation synced with, since the extension counts as a fresh install each time. In a world where switching browsers is trivial, I think minor annoyances like those are best removed.
What seems most likely to me, at least before AGI is invented, is that the human will ask the LLM for strategies to make money under pressure, it will suggest something unethical, and the human will commit the insider trading themselves. When questioned, they will blame the AI for misleading them.
If LLMs are eventually regarded by a lot of people as an authoritative source, regardless of whether or not they are, I expect a lot of such cases of "morality laundering" to appear.
Tesla has attempted to insulate itself from blame by requiring drivers to take full responsibility for autonomous acts of the vehicle under their supervision. (Perhaps also by having autonomous modes disengage before impending collisions — presumably it helps with PR/legally to say autonomous systems were not active at the time of collision?)
Most don’t think autonomous systems will become safe or accepted as safe until manufacturers are willing to assume liability and indemnify users, as Mercedes has.l, by contrast.
> Tesla has insulated itself from blame by requiring drivers to take full responsibility for autonomous acts of the vehicle under their supervision.
Well, they've made drivers feel more exposed by doing that. I don't think you can actually negate product liability law that way, but if you make people feel like they bear all responsibility, it might help marginally even if it isn't legally effective.
>if you make people feel like they bear all responsibility, it might help marginally even if it isn't legally effective.
Since we are talking about a system that needs a human on alert and ready to take over at any time to function safely, I wholeheartedly agree. Human nature is still human nature, people will zone out and look for diversions regardless, but fear will motivate some to be a bit more vigilant in spite of the boredom of staring intently at a road that you aren't personally navigating.
I'm not sure there's going to be a lot. I think people will catch on.
"Federal Judge Kevin Castel is considering punishments for Schwartz and his associates. In an order on Friday, Castel scheduled a June 8 hearing at which Schwartz, fellow attorney Peter LoDuca, and the law firm must show cause for why they should not be sanctioned."
