Probably we ignore that and arrest him. Trump has him murdered in prison and a public statement is released that he committed suicide.

You navigate them by finding out where their brain is broken and informing them of what words mean. In the ideal case some of them stop speaking incorrectly.

We aren’t computers we are people. We are having this discussion about the computer. The computer given a massive corpus of input is about to discern that the following text and responses are statistically likely to follow one another

foo = bar

foo != bar you lied to me!

yes I lied sorry foo = foo

The computer doesn’t “know” foo it has no model of foo or how it relates to bar. it just knows the statistical likelihood of = bar following the token foo vs other possible token. YOU the user introduced the token lie and foo != bar to it and it discerned that it admitting it was a likely response especially if the text foo = bar is only comparatively weakly related.

EG it will end up doubling down vs admitting more so when many responses contained similar sequences eg when its better supported by actual people’s thoughts and words. All the smarts and the ability to think, to lie, to have any motivation whatsoever come from the people’s words fed into the model. It isn’t in any way shape or form intelligent. It can’t per se lie, or even hallucinate. It has no thoughts and no intents.

You never have 100% of people using a word the same if only because some portion of the population is stupid and illiterate and you have both drift over time and geography. So say at a given time of a billion people 99.995% believe the definition is A and 0.005% believe B. Periodically people correct people in B and some of them shift back to the overwhelming majority and sometimes new folks drift into B.

It is clearly at that point, 99.995% A, correct to say that the definition of the word is A and anyone who says B is wrong. This doesn’t change if B becomes 10% but it might change if B becomes overwhelmingly dominant in which case it becomes correct. There is constantly small drifts mostly by people simply to stupid to find out what words means. Treating most of these as alternative definitions would be in a word inefficient.

Drift also isn’t neutral. For instance using lie to mean anything which is wrong actually deprives the language of a common word to even mean that. It impoverishes the language and makes it harder to express ideas. There is every reason to prefer the correct definition that is also overwhelmingly used.

There are also words which belong to a technical nature which are defined not by usage but a particular discipline. A kidney is a kidney and it would be one if 90% of the dumb people said. Likewise a CPU never referred to the entire tower no matter how many AOL users said so.

This is a long way of saying that just because definition follows usage we should let functionally illiterate people say what they want and treat it as alternative facts.

You can’t ask it about itself because it has no internal model of self and is just basing any answer on data in its training set

Still not a lie still text that is statistically likely to fellow prior text produced by a model with no thought process that knows nothing

The latter is the actual definition. Some people not knowing what words mean isnt an argument

It can be prevented by people paid 400-1000 per hour spending time either writing own paperwork or paying others to actually write it.

What is agency

They literally didn’t take the deal on the table that was the only deal ever going to be on the table until after the election. Its the Biden peace deal. Its going to be the trump genocide

If your choices are a function of prior events and an emergent property of complex but deterministic processes where does agency come in? We are a complex deterministic process that simulates our own self to both predict a much more complex unconscious self and write rules to influence it going forward.

We call this process being conscious even when its writing just so stories after the fact.

People are locked up all the time for just possessing child porn without having abused anyone. This isn’t a bad thing because they are a danger to society.

But America isn’t helping Ukraine anymore and trump isnt offering to do so now what belp did he turn down. Be specific.

Your choice of words is an analytical failure it says that the the will somehow sitting on top of all those processes rather than being a function of them.

Basically every pedo in prison is one who isn’t abusing kids. Every pedo on a list is one who won’t be left alone with a young family member. Actually reducing AI CP doesn’t actually by itself do anything.

Ok watch adult porn then watch a movie in which women or children are abused. Note how the abuse is in no way sexualized exactly opposite of porn. It often likely takes place off screen and when rape in general appears on screen between zero and no nudity co-occurs. For children it basically always happens off screen.

Simulated child abuse has been federally illegal for ~20 years in the US and we appear to have very little trouble telling the difference between prosecuting pedos and cinema even whilst we have struggled enough with sexuality in general.

But ultimately the issue will become that there is no way to prevent it.

This argument works well enough for actual child porn. We certainly don’t catch it all but every prosecution takes one more pedo off the streets. The net effect is positive. We don’t catch most car thieves either and nobody suggests we legalize car theft.

Am I reading this right? You’re for prosecuting people who have broken no laws?

No I’m for making it against the law to simulate pedophile shit as the net effect is fewer abused kids than if such images were to be legal. Notably you are free to fantasize about whatever you like its the actual creation and sharing of images that would be illegal. Far from being a minority report hellscape its literally the present way things already are many places.

Let’s play devils advocate. You find Bob the pedophile with pictures depicting horrible things. 2 things are true.

1. Although you can’t necessarily help Bob you can lock him up preventing him from doing harm and permanently brand him as a dangerous person making it less likely for actual children to be harmed.

2. Bob can’t claim actual depictions of abuse are AI generated and force you to find the unknown victim before you can lock him and his confederates up. If the law doesn’t distinguish between simulated and actual abuse then in both cases Bob just goes to jail.

A third factor is that this technology and the inherent lack of privacy on the internet could potentially pinpoint numerous unknown pedophiles who can even if they haven’t done any harm yet be profitably persecuted to societies ultimate profit so long as you value innocent kids more than perverts.

If you are eating raw veggies and corn flakes nothing will change means you eat boring food. Offering nothing means you die a painful death. See the difference?

Why wouldn’t it make more sense to provide mobility assistance like motorized chairs for the 1% of users who need such to get them to and from transit options including parking even if its not house side.