No, I just try to trade stock.

But like anything that is excessive can be harmful. Having unlimited empathy, willpower , and being completely rational all have pros and cons. There was a study I believe in which people who felt little to no emotion had a hard time deciding on anything. Because everything is more or less just as valuable as everything else. The only thing keeping them alive is survival driven.

That won't stop the bullet.

Yes, but they would objectively be incorrect. That's the difference.

And they'll say the same of your thinking.

A gay person existing cannot possibly be villainous. Thinking otherwise is a complete logical fallacy. Anyone seeking to oppress another person on the basis of this logical fallacy, is committing wrong. Their intellectual failings don't change the objective truth.

To them, a gay is a villain, to you, the homophobe is a villain. As simple as that. They'll both use AI to do "good". One to be gay, other to be homophobe.

Our reasoning might just be glorified pattern matching too.

Yes, oppressors do get awfully upset about not being able to oppress other people, and definitely think that having their ability to cause harm curtailed is a bad thing. They are wrong. (EX: homophobes who think their rights are being violated because gay people have been allowed to marry. Their rights have not been violated, merely their ability to oppress other people curtailed.) The difference is not null.

That's what I mean. You can't do that without getting noticed. Even if you did you will get killed very quickly.

You underestimate how foggy real life events tend to be. You can't predict with certainty and no amount of intelligence can help you.

The only way this can be harmful is if you are already in a position of power. But if you are already there you can do things without AI as well.

For most people it's impossible to be a supervillain with almost anything. They simply lack the moves and position to accomplish it

Trust me, bro. (Follows a quick answer by AI).

During World War II, the US government formed the Manhattan Project, a top-secret research program dedicated to developing the world's first nuclear weapons. The papers published during this time on nuclear topics were often focused on the technical details of creating and using nuclear fission for military purposes.

One of the most important papers from this period was "The Production of Radioactive Substances by Neutron Bombardment" by Glenn T. Seaborg and Arthur C. Wahl. Published in 1945, this paper described the discovery and isolation of several new elements through neutron bombardment, including plutonium, which would later be used in the construction of the atomic bomb.

Another key paper from this time was "Theoretical Possibility of a Nuclear Bomb" by Edward Teller. This paper explored the feasibility of creating a nuclear bomb and outlined the basic principles behind its design.

Other papers from this period focused on the design and construction of nuclear reactors, such as "The Thermal Neutron in Reactors" by Enrico Fermi and "Nuclear Chain Reaction in Uranium and Thorium" by Eugene Wigner. These papers helped lay the foundation for the development of nuclear power.

However, not all papers from this time were focused solely on technical details. Some also explored the ethical implications of using nuclear weapons in warfare. One such paper was "The Social Responsibilities of the Scientist" by James Franck, which called on scientists to consider the potential consequences of their research and to take an active role in promoting peace.

Overall, the papers published on nuclear topics during the Manhattan Project were instrumental in advancing our understanding of nuclear science and technology, and in shaping the world we live in today.

The only point I'm making is that you're saying AI could do good because of people doing good. What I'm saying is that people doing good can mean people doing bad to others.

The difference between a supervillain and a guardian angel is null. Different people have different meanings.

"AI could make people do good", sure, the type of good that is killing people on Ukraine and billions of people are supporting?

You're not being very clear about the points you're trying to make. I do not know if that is by design, or because your thoughts on this topic are still under construction.

I don't know what is a supervillain to you, but if people with low IQ and slow internet can commit crimes, imagine someone with enhanced capabilities that can create fake audios, videos, images, fake proofs of everything just blinking twice to the AR glasses.

Scamming people is not becoming a supervillain

I'm not decrying anything, I'm literally saying "I'll do good, I hope everyone does" doesn't stop wars, violence, crimes or anything like that. Because they're empty words without meanings in this society.

"Some people don't understand what is right" lol, okay, explain that to the criminal while he's shooting you thinking he's doing good.

Russia attacked Ukraine unprovoked. They are in the wrong.

You are correct that some people do not understand what right and wrong are. That does not mean that right and wrong do not exist. Sometimes there are gray areas, and in these we need to be judicious in balancing competing interests, but that does not mean that we cannot tell right from wrong, and by pushing that narrative, you are advocating for the very type of moral ambiguity that you are pretending to decry.

What, exactly is a divine spark?

hm they probably expected the non-profit "Open"AI not completely switch around stop publishing papers and becoming a for profit company. (Usually in the past that isn't the norm or the purpose of a nonprofit)

We had a couple of years were the cooperations somehow realized that sharing their research advanced progress a lot faster. OpenAI will get the companies back to protectionism.

There're Philippines guys with broken English on Tinder scamming people from Norway every week and you say a person enhanced with LLM/LVM and enhanced sensors can't commit crimes?

What I'm saying is that "suffering", "oppression", "freedom", "liberty", "peace", "war", "violence" and "self defense" are subjective terms without consensus in our societies.

I'm shocked I'm having this discussion. Don't you watch the news? We're literally having a war in Ukraine and nobody agrees what is good or bad, what is self defense or what is peace.

You will get your ass beaten up if you try anything like that in a poor country. Don't be stupid. No matter how smart you think you are you aren't smart enough to beat a lot of people especially not a country. Unless you are fully superhuman you will get assassinated no matter how cool your glasses are

Are you investing in private companies?

Collaborative Work and openness drive progress.

Your comment is arrogant, and displays a lack of ethics and morals.

Causing suffering is wrong. Oppressing other people is wrong. Taking people's freedom and liberty is wrong. Peace is always preferable to war, and violence in service of anything other than self-defense is wrong.