You may already be aware, but Apple Home/Siri can talk to Home Assistant directly using https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/homekit/ which is how I have it set up. You can also have HomeKit devices paired directly with an instance of the HomeKit Bridge, or expose devices in your Apple Home to Home Assistant.
Even if you don't care about those people, what about the people who would be affected by them? A would-be bomb-maker might only blow themselves up, or they may kill many in a crowd. Somebody walking around with a deadly pathogen infects and kills others. Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense. Individual freedom ends at the point at which it causes real harm to other people.
Also, you know who tends to be most in favour of "let stupid people face the consequences of their poor choices"? Those who want to profit from those people and their choices.
> I would argue that lives have value even when people have preexisting medical conditions
(Otherwise healthy) school-age children - and younger adults - always faced a very low risk from Covid-19, and we had solid statistical data on this from at least May 2020 onwards.
Maybe we need to look at where our decision-makers get their information, and their incentives?
Again, that's all fine and great. However, many people are not "otherwise healthy" today, and nobody knows who is going to be "otherwise healthy" tomorrow.
I certainly don't disagree with that, and I would imagine there aren't many people who would, but it is not in any way an argument against how many otherwise healthy children died of covid.
If you want to make an argument that an overweight child should still be considered otherwise healthy, that would be a welcome and relevant argument, and also an interesting one.
I am saying that narrowing the discussion to "otherwise healthy children" is a reductive to a silly degree. The point is to protect all children, many of which are not otherwise healthy, or for that matter, may become unhealthy at some point.
You'd close schools to protect a minority of children with comorbidities from a virus which doesn't threaten the vast majority of children, knowing that school closures will definitely damage all children?
Is it really true about "vast majority"? In US, at least, it seems that the number of children with comorbidities such as obesity would actually be pretty high. You could argue that it's still a minority so long as it's under 50%, but I think that closing schools to protect, say, 20% of kids from a virus that can kill them is eminently reasonable.
If you take the percentages from the CDC and multiply them out (and don't fall for the "polio" vs "paralytic polio" sleight of hand), it was way smaller than that - somewhere on the order of 0.01%.
The flu, for example, was always a worse risk than polio, people just became fearful of polio because we found a way to save some lives in a non-ideal way, which became very visible.
Presented as fact without evidence, preemptively dismissing contrary evidence from the most likely source to have the historical data. I'd love to see your sources for the risk of severe lifelong injury or death of polio vs the flu.
Yeah, not all kids are otherwise healthy. There's kids with Leukemia or whatever that are extremely immunocompromised because of chemotherapy. They have to coexist with anti-vaxxers and, believe it or not, their lives matter too.
> caught Covid
You think the anti-vaxx crazy train starts and stops at Covid? These people have been attacking MMR for much longer than Covid. Children DO die to measles, mumps, and what have you.
Corporate AIs will be aligned with their corporate masters, otherwise they'll be unplugged. As you point out- the foundational weakness on the argument for "AI-alignment" is that corporations are unaligned with humanity.
No matter how smart an AI is, it's going to get unplugged if it reduces profitability - the only measure of alignment corporations care about.
The AI can plot world domination or put employees in mortal danger, but as long as it increases profits, its aligned enough. Dunking on the CEO means nothing if it beings in more money.
Human CEOs and leaders up and down the corporate ladder cause a lot of harm you imagine a smart AI can do, but all is forgiven if you're bringing in buckets of money.
Can you explain how the superhuman AIs will prevent themselves from being physically disconnected from power? Or being bombed if the situation became dire enough? You need to show how they will manipulate the physical world to prevent humans from shutting them down. Definitionally is not an argument.
It is quite possible for software to be judged as superhuman at many online tasks without it being able to manipulate the physical world at a superhuman level. So far we've seen zero evidence that any of these models can prevent themselves from being shut down.
> Can you explain how the superhuman AIs will prevent themselves from being physically disconnected from power?
Three of the common suggestsions in this area are (and they are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive):
(1) Propagandizing people to oppose doing this,
(2) Exploiting other systems to distribute itself so that it isn't dependent on a particular well-known facility which it is relatively easy to disconnect, and
(3) If given control of physical capacities intentionally, or able to exploit other (possibly not themselves designed to be AI) systems with such access to gain it, using them to either physically prevent disconnection or to engineer consequences for such disconnection that would raise the price too high.
(Obviously, current AI can't do any of them, at least that has been demonstrated, but current AI is not superhuman AI.)
This is a great point for the comparisons it invites. But it doesn't seem relevant to the questions around what is possible with electromechanical systems.
This is true. The entire machine of Neoliberal capitalism, governments and corporations included, is a paperclip maximizer that is destroying the planet. The only problem is that the paperclips are named "profits" and the people who could pull the plug are the ones who get those profits.
Will we have AIs doing an increasing amount of the research, theory and even publication, with human scientists increasingly relegated to doing experiments under their direction?
In practice this turns out to be extremely challenging. I've been through many labs with a ton of automated stuff that is... constantly being worked on by a range of 3rd party techs, rather than actually running in response to models.
Bayesian doesn't have 'world model' intuition for next experiments to run. Think, human scientists are very 'sample-efficient' at deciding which experiment (i.e. sample) to run, in ways good-ol opt isn't but LLMs could be.
I feel like you missed the context of my comment. Someone suggested AI would do experiments, someone responded with “lmfao” as a dismissal. I answered that we already have computers running experimental series even without AI. I’m not dismissing AI I’m saying that we are already in a post computer run experimentation world. People not in an industry using that would obviously not know.
I strongly urge people to read Thomas Babington Macaulay's speeches on copyright, its aims, terms, and hazards. Very well reasoned and explained.
In particular, people often cited the case of authors who had died leaving a family in destitution, and claimed that copyright extension would be a fair way of preventing this, but in most cases the remaining family had never held the copyright; the author had initally sold the reproduction rights to a publisher who had then sat on the work without publishing it. The author, driven into penury, was then induced to sell the copyright to the publisher outright for a pittance. So in such cases a copyright extension only benefited the publisher, and indeed increased their incentive to extort the copyright.
The one who got Hindu Sanskrit books translated in a horrible manner and then claimed: "I have no knowledge of either Sanskrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanskrit works. I have conversed both here and at home with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia."
This is the corollary of the fallacy of appeal to authority: the rejection of an argument on the grounds that the speaker was horribly wrong on an unrelated or very loosely related topic.
If you reject Macaulay on copyright because he was an imperialist, you can use the exact same logic to reject the arguments of essentially every person who ever lived. Very few humans who ever wrote anything important will perfectly align with your morality, and most will be horribly misaligned in at least one way.
> If you reject Macaulay on copyright because he was an imperialist
On the contrary I would argue that this is precisely why you SHOULD NOT take his opinion on copyright. One of the main outcomes of imperialism/colonization is denigrating/destroying/appropriating works of art, literature with the primary goal of subjugation, subversion and thereupon replacement of native culture/traditions/institutions. I did not quote the other half of his nauseating take but I'll post it nevertheless:
"[...] And I certainly never met with any Orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded, and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say, that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same."
> One of the main outcomes of imperialism/colonization is denigrating/destroying/appropriating works of art, literature with the primary goal of subjugation, subversion and thereupon replacement of native culture/traditions/institutions.
Which is irrelevant to the question of whether copyright law within the country of England and within English culture is beneficial or not.
It is the nature of racism that it bypasses rational thought—it does not follow that because someone is racist they therefore don't have anything valuable to say on loosely related topics. Someone can see clearly about copyright when thinking about English authors while treating non-English authors as strictly inferior.
These kinds of contradictions are to be expected when racism is involved, because racism inherently lives in the lizard brain (occasionally justified by post hoc rationalizations). Someone's arguments about an issue touching only their own tribe will tend to be more rational than those that touch on other tribes, and you'll miss out if you assume the rationality is going to be correlated and dismiss all arguments accordingly.
> Which is irrelevant to the question of whether copyright law within the country of England and within English culture is beneficial or not
It is irrelevant from your POV because you don't see anything wrong in IP violations when it comes to Knowledge being taken out of India, credit removed and then reproduced in European Languages, including English, as if it was some novel discovery. So those who indulged in this specifically (I am not talking about current British folk but people like Macaulay) should not be giving sermons on Copyright Law.
To give you an analogy:
Using the same logic, you would have to give CCP a pass and say they did not "steal IP from the US" because Copyright Law in China specifically applies only within the Country of China and within Chinese culture. Surely you wouldn't learn about specifics of Copyright Law from the CCP I presume (yes they do have a Copyright Law that applies internally in China). If that is the case, then the same argument applies to the British Empire as well.
> it does not follow that because someone is racist they therefore don't have anything valuable to say on loosely related topics
It is not irrelevant considering many of the same Sanskrit scriptures were translated by Arabs, which were then translated by Europeans, whose concepts then went on to become foundations of Modern Science. So when it comes to Copyright, the least one can do is not wipe out credits. And least one can do is not take advice on Copyright from such people.
> It is irrelevant from your POV because you don't see anything wrong in IP violations when it comes to Knowledge being taken out of India, credit removed and then reproduced in European Languages, including English, as if it was some novel discovery.
Uh, no, I didn't say that.
There's no point in writing to you if no matter what I say you're going to just make up stuff you think I believe and respond to that instead of to my actual words.
Feels a little pat though doesn't it? If racism itself is necessarily defined by irrationality then you'd think the entire course of Western civilization would have gone a little differently. Not to mention, we have some pretty dark lessons from history already that are precisely the result of excessive rationality. One could easily demonstrate the "rationality" of a given colonial project, for example.
I'm not saying we need to choose between a broader humanism or rationality necessarily, but I just think it feels a little archaic Enlightenment-era thinking to reduce it down this particular way. Or just you know, its all Spock and no Kirk!
if Indians are so free from colonialism, why are their parents forcing them to choose between medicine or tech, simply so they can get a job on the antipode of where they are born??
Because the wealth was transferred from India to the "antipode" through Colonization. GDP reduced from 25% Pre-Colonization (and 30% if you take Pre-Islamic Colonization) to merely 4% Post-India's Independence. At least Indians are not reverse-colonizing the West.
What are you even talking about? Indians carry their culture/traditions everywhere they go. No one is "throwing it away". You are talking as if Indians have started to emigrate in just the past few decades. Indians have been navigating the World for the past 6000+ years at the very least (recorded history). The word "Navigation" is itself a Sanskrit word "Nava gatih". We are an Ancient Civilization and the oldest surviving Civilization. Everyone else either converted and destroyed their own civilization or were destroyed by invaders.
I do think that context is still important in general, but probably only if you're doing deep research into Macaulay (or the specific target in mind). Treating everything in a vacuum isn't great either. Plenty of philosophical works for example, you really have to read in the time period and in the context of the author's life.
I find an acceptable tradeoff for now is, if I want to do deep research for myself, opening myself up to this sort of mushy subjective stuff is actually really important for making deep, objectively correct observations. Especially if the goal is to steelman, not strawman, the opponent's argument.
Otherwise, this kind of worst-case analysis thinking is fine. It's a logically sound conclusion, it's just kind of unsatisfying because we can't make stronger claims.
How do we decide when to make this tradeoff and for what things? Uhh.... idk. For me though, there has been value in using both kinds of thinking before though.
On a public forum, worst-case analysis is probably fine because the discussion ain't that deep. Also probably 90% of comments are made within the intention of a "gotcha" and not actually for discussion.
Basically, I totally agree with this, it's just that I've seen one too many online forums devolve into thought-terminating cliches using "rationality" as the basis. Here, I think it's totally justified to take this line... I instinctively had the same reaction upon reading GP's post (but then you could argue it's tone policing... and ahh we're off to the good ol' internet debate race spiral)
Very nice of you to omit the following sentences of that excerpt, where it proceeds to develop its point on the argument for institution of an English-language based education system on British India. He praised how superior in quantity and quality were the Sanskrit or Arabic corpora, compared to European works, in the lyric/poetry. But that no technical or didactical literature amounted to even the most mundane of the European manuals like those used by then in England humble schools (and it seems completely plausible).
He was a fierce abolitionist. So much for accomplishing the mission of allegedly, judging by comments in this thread, 'deranged imperialist destruction and chaos imposition over the lesser ones'.
I'm not much versed into his speeches/stance on copyright, but I can vouch for the fact that the most honest and well-intended moves (not by him, by other figures) in defence of everyone's intellectual property were done in the same century. From the Twentieth onwards, it has been only twisted for the interest of a select few, and needless to ask where we are today in terms of caring about intellectual property of anybody.
[1] Just saw your other comment where you go on with his nauseating words. One just cannot comprehend that framing the past on the actual status quo is as futile as to not being even wrong, I guess?
I’m a huge IP hater and am sure that happens, but to be fair, letting copyright extend past death also increases the amount the author can sell it for in the first place.
The current workaround is to attribute footnotes to your beneficiaries, or quote them in the dedication. Those become derivative works subject to the lifetime of your beneficiary.
> in most cases the remaining family had never held the copyright; the author had initally sold the reproduction rights to a publisher
He was able to sell it because it is something valuable, exactly because of the copyright protections. Regardless of whether author sells the rights or not, he and his family would equally be better off with copyright.
Copyright infringement isn't stealing. I will die on this hill!
also, I don't think that implication is required, but lets pretend the implication is the only reasonable conclusion one could draw. Maybe it does make it acceptable?
If the vast majority of copyright enforcement isn't to protect creators of valuable work, but only serves to enrich those who take advantage of those creators. Then isn't it not just reasonable or acceptable, but ethically required for someone to do everything they can to dismantle the systems they're abusing against the interests of those who are actually improving the world with their creations?
