It’s also such a bad description, since by their own description Bot+LLM they where using was almost certainly feeding itself data found by a search engine.
That’s like saying, no I didn’t give the amoral PI any private information, I merely gave them a name to investigate!
EDIT: Also lol at this part of the original disclaimer:
An expert in LLMs who has been working in the field since the 1990s reviewed our process.
Pre-commitment is such a silly concept, and also a cultish justification for not changing course.
What’s pernicious (for kool-aided people) is that the initial Roko post was about a good” AI doing the punishing, because ✨obviously✨ it is only using temporal blackmail because bringing AI into being sooner benefits humanity.
In singularian land, they think the singularity is inevitable, and it’s important to create the good one verse—after all an evil AI could do the torture for shits and giggles, not because of “pragmatic” blackmail.
Pre-millenarian specifically ^^.
This is beyond horrifying:
I don’t know to decide wether I should be glad this wasn’t show to a jury, or sad we don’t get an obvious mistrial setting some kind of precedent against this kind of demented ventriquolism act, indirectly asking for maximum sentencing through what should be completely inadmissible character testimony.
Does anyone here know how ‘appeals on sentencing’ vs ‘appeals on verdicts’, obviously judges should have some leeway, but do they have enough leeway to say (In court) that they were moved for example by what a spirit medium said or whatnot, is there some jurisprudence there?
I can only hope that the video played an insignificant role in the judges decision, and it was some deranged—post hoc—emotional—waxing ‘poetic’ moment for the judge.
Yuck.