It in fact would, because there would be no incentive to keep it like it is - it would never have been made so bad if it was a democratic decision.

Facebook and Co. is bad today because there’s a conflict of interest between users and shareholders, and Zuckerberg chose the shareholders cause they line his pockets. This conflict would not exist if it was democratic.

deeply antisocial

It doesn’t really have to be. The problem is that the profits that comes from that machine are not spread among the working people - that would be the social way to implement it.

Rogue AI is akin to a car handbrake failing.

The handbrake is a critical security feature of cars to make sure the car doesn’t roll downhill and kill someone. If a handbrake failed to stop the car, we would put the blame squarely on the car manufacturer and we would require strict standards and regulations for car handbrakes.

Containing an AI system with proper security measures is the same. It is not “rogue AI”, it is “insufficient and careless security” by the AI company in question. If those security measures fail, of course the blame sits at the AI company.

If a car handbrake fails, we would not be talking about a “rogue car”. That’s ridiculous.

Someone on Twitter is saying that the username for the fridges was “admin” and that the password was the current date… Prime security in effect here, clearly /s

I hope you’re right! Not that I think anyone can predict where this will lead at this time.

You don’t even need to use Microsoft’s AI, you can use any AI you want that is capable enough for the task.

I think this may seriously harm modding by preventing it from even happening on new games, which does scare me as a modder.

I did think about games too and I was about to use it as an example, but as software, I think games are actually much harder to legally copy and distribute, because so much of a game is its art assets. Sure you can copy the software no problem, but you can’t really copy the artistic expression of the game. You can’t copy Hades and keep the great illustrations and animations. You couldn’t keep the music or voice acting. All of that would be copyright infringement.

So games are actually somewhat legally protected still, I’d say, basically because they contain much more art and creativity than most other programs.

But that only strengthens the argument that software is worthless now - I can copy existing software with AI and it is public domain basically is what you’re saying? So again, I can make a copy and legally distribute it. How can anyone earn money on software in that world?

I think you’re conflating consciousness and intelligence. I think you could theoretically have an artificial general intelligence on the same level of intelligence as a human, or even beyond, but with zero consciousness. We know that intelligence does not follow consciousness (unless you believe a fish or a cow is not conscious). Why should consciousness follow intelligence?

If you made an exact clone of Photoshop

Yes but you wouldn’t actually need to make your clone very different for the copyright to be entirely different and then surely you wouldn’t get sued? And I think in this case, it is definitely sufficiently different, it’s a completely different tech stack and while the UI is similar, it’s probably not identical (I haven’t checked though). But also you can’t really copyright UI beyond the design itself, the functionality is free game as far as I understand.

Also worth remembering that different countries may have different stances on this. I’m curious how the EU might handle it.

Let’s reverse engineer every “smart car” software and disable all connectivity.

You’d still need hardware access to install that software, presumably? Surely it would break some sort of warrant. Also, as much as I despise connectivity in smart cars, I’m not sure I’m comfortable having AI code injected into my car. Then again, the car companies are surely already injecting AI slop into every single new car these days… Maybe it’s not such a bad idea after all. It’s rough, but we gotta fight slop with slop.

Lots of anti-AI sentiments in here and I get that, but I’d like to discuss the implications here, cause this is actually somewhat revolutionary.

If I can just take any software and reverse-engineer it or recreate it to a precision that is practically indistinguishable from the original (not saying it really is in this case, but for the sake of discussion) and I then have copyright over that copy, doesn’t that turn things on it’s head? Doesn’t that make software essentially worthless? Any software you sell someone, they can recreate and distribute for free, legally (presumably). I suppose we’ve yet to see if this will really turn out to be legal, but it’s hard to argue how this is illegal, I would say - how is this different than a human closely studying Microsoft Word and “simply” writing their own version of the same program?

I’m not sure if this is good or bad honestly, but it sure is interesting. Anyone else have thoughts around how this affects the worth of software?

This is a legacy from the past of typewriters. Please never do this.