undefined | Better HN

0 pointsaltruios2y ago0 comments

>and sell it back to us from behind a paywall and that's fine.

That's the sticking point. If it's an open tool for humanity's benefit being created given back to us, that's one thing... but to sell it back to us...

With that said, piracy is close to what's happening... but I think we should be careful classifying where/what exactly is the matter. I reason I think that matter's lies may be down the end of a slippery slope, or it may be straight ahead of us... the future is hard to know. If we classify it poorly we may unintentionally cause human(post/trans-human) right's issues {if I upload my consciousness to a digital mind, I don't want archaic laws to dominate what I can see/compute based on the material of which I'm made}.

0 comments

__loam2y ago

These companies need to make money because they took VC money and training these things take 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars.

Also nice to see the complete nonsense of digital mind uploading on hackernews vis a vis this discussion. If that happens we'd need to change a lot of laws anyway.

altruiosOP2y ago

The mind uploading is just one of many potential outcomes.

To me the more interesting concern: we can't seem to agree on the bare minimum requirements for sentience/experience. Maybe the 'bare minimum' is 'electricity runs through it'. It may be that these LL/SD/ML models are having an 'experience' without the proper memory/state/internal-control to achieve sentience/consciousness.

Law's need to change, that's for sure (look at copyright).

And taking VC money to do anything Open seems like a trap. There are government grants... but yeah... there exists a whole host of (related or similar) problems in that.

ben_w2y ago

Thought crime in 2084: the name given for a crime for which the only evidence is a scan of your brain.

e.g. "You imagined someone naked! That's a non-consensual deepfake of intimate personal imagery!"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse