I think right now people are at the end of that cusp; daily they are worse at grasping how their results are collated, and thus are more unable to figure out what "facts" they are getting are reliable. Things are far more subtle than the Ping Pong Pizza days. The online interactions of millions and millions of people with search engines, AI, database backends, and etc. being used to "create" answers on the fly kinda worries me.
I don't disagree with you, but my concern is more people simply accepting the 'answer' because how could the AI be wrong and not for a moment thinking 'I should check if this is right', and if called out defaulting to 'not my problem, the AI said so'.
Not sure. But I figure we are pretty close to a world where people think AIs and tech are so advanced as to convince people they are autonomously making 'offers' of things (like, if people are so bad at all that 'free stuff!' crap that washes over everything in imaginary internetland, how can AIs do it?). Every day at least one of my devices comes up with some cockamamie fake thing it seems to build my personalized results around, even with content blockers enabled.
That is ignoring stuff AI might come up with that isn't steeped in emptions... I mean, if you think about it, I am not sure how an AI should respond if it were acting as a PA (personal assistant) to someone looking for work with no luck after a certain amount of time, for instance. Facebook experimented (I think appropriately) with stuff like trying to calm down mania online, and got sort of bashed for it, but it seems cruel for an AI to be pumping sunshine also. I am aware the DOD researched this extensively and assume the CIA and similar other countries' intelligence agencies will have also.
Add in stuff like what Musk experiments with and peoples' psychological issues with AI almost certainly would be terrible. These are things intelligence agencies have invested in research in for decades and decades.
If there is much more human-machine overlap, if nothing else human interaction as we think of it will be extinct. Do not want that.
Will people just turn into extensions of agentic AI instead of (godforbid either is bad) the other way around? Not a fan of cybernetics; that creeps me out (not, per se, me doing it , although at some point it seems if that happened one would feel like there was no choice but to also take part), but being forced to interact with any of it (and this part is here and now and moving forward continuously now; we are already forced to act with it, most of us, if obviously the tech is not at the point where we are competing for dominance with it quite yet).
I'd like to think that even though agencies like the CIA have been involved in some sketchy stuff over the past almost a century, they also have probably gotten involved to try to prevent more of it than most anyone knows either.
Oh well then, if it references something already published somewhere. Nothing to talk about here. It's a perfectly normal, non-secret thing. Let's move on.
It is amazing how Dr. Know projects where AI is likely to go. And a Kubrick script, no less. Even the commercial overlap, where you pump in coins as the only way to get answers. Did it not also have ads? Truly prescient.
I agree with this redescription fallacy and the point being made here. Perhaps a better analogy to humans would be:
Humans appear to intelligenty communicate, however these are just cleverly disguised sound patterns produced by the brain that happen to increase the likelihood of food going into their mouths, and various similar reward attracting mechanisms that make survival outcomes more likely. So human intelligence could be reduced to
something like "fancy food-attracting algorithms" using the same fallacy.
I'm kind of on the fence on the subject of whether LLMs could be compared to the complexity of the human brain, myself.
Main trading partner for the vast majority of the world is not a trust signal. It is an effect of strategy.
Relies on navigable seas means nothing in the context of seas becoming dominated by China. Then, they would have that, simply not in a cooperative way.
We could expect China to be extremely aggressive in asserting control over waters they dominate, because that is what they have done for decades. As aggressive as they can be.
Aggressive as they can be? Can you list the wars they started over the last few decades?
They have a particular thing with Taiwan and they also insist on having a clear path to Singapore, which is a reasonable ask if you look at a map. Other than that, their record for decades has been non-interventionism. They are way less aggressive than every other security council member.
A more accurate formulation would be their strategy for decades has been asserting commercial influence on their political opponents. Going back further, this chimes with their overall strategy. From the center, expand out. Hard when safest, but soft and covert when more effective. Always a form of aggression.
South China Sea aggression lists (I didn't say anything about a list of wars with names):
Starting conventional wars in the style of Putin isn't necessarily the sign of good will or peace you appear to accept it as. And aggression can be defined in different ways. Aggression to hold their own order inside their current territories is another aspect of this. Suppression of their own populace is an aggression that exists around the clock, and has notably expanded in Hong Kong to disgusting levels in the last few years.
Threats to world powers who dare to speak up are another one, such as the one during Covid that threatened bluntly to pluck out one of the five eyes if they're not careful with their words to protect freedoms in HK. – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-54995227
Aggression within their own ranks is also visible, such as removing major military leaders recently under suspicion of not being "all in" in terms of loyalty to the CCP's wider project (whatever that is).
Chinese companies thrive in an entrepreneurial framework, then their leaders are routinely kidnapped if they speak out against the party's aims. Minority communities are sent to camps and sterilised. Tibet is under intense surveillance and constant dictates to move ancient towns somewhere else if it's in the way of say a new dam they want to build.
This deeply internal and covertly outwards aggression cannot stand. It's evil incarnate. Sneaky and covered over just-enough, but visible enough to see the nature clearly.
And Google Maps literally did something very similar to me once, just a few years ago. Told me straight ahead when there was a sharp hairpin obscured by overhead bridge (literal mapping issue in unusual motorway adjacent road). Caused a crash with minor injuries I got back up and walked away from (on two wheels, would have been fatal if I didn't brake so well, or didn't get off the road fast enough, a large truck came round the corner). Takeaway is "never make driving decisions based on what the screen shows." There is no platform worth trusting more than your eyes on the road ahead.
One of the biggest forces is simply the voice of the people, as demonstrated in threads like this. Note how NordVPN cited growing public sentiment against taking half the internet down in Spain in an attempt to stop streams during games.
I think it's simply a context thing, and LLMs can go blind to any part of the instructions at any time, possibly when exploring complex micro tasks that create their own layers of context within them. That's how the pattern feels to me. Parallel to a limit on the number of things a human can hold in its head at the same time. The more complex the thinking involved becomes the bigger the self generated context becomes, too, it doesn't seem like an easily fixed problem to me other than to have an extremely small "mission critical instructions" context that are surfaced in a more impossible-to-ignore way.
I was also around then, and actually it did feel exactly the same now that you say. Sense of sailing towards an unknown destination that seemed very exciting, but was clear we didn't quite get what it was yet and were working out the destination mid-flight.
Why would they need to release the prompt, as if it's a part of transparency? It's obviously some form of "find security vulnerabilities" and contains no magic in itself. All that matters is the output here.
The levels of clickbait in that headline are absurd. It's like seventh hell of clickbait.
Also it doesn't come from the source. WSJ headline is: “The Hidden Debt That Apple Owes to the CIA”
So someone's running experiments of some sort on HN, driven by AI, is my read. Hope they snub that shit out.