Yeah, if I use a credit card in person, isn't it merchant's responsibility to verify my identity to their satisfaction for each and every purchase, and they let someone else (that's not an authorized user) use my card, I'm not responsible for any spending?
Right, but choosing to troll the company you own because the board fired you for repeatedly, extremely publicly "Having a normal one", looks a lot like a mental breakdown of some sort.
I mean it's basically identical to a signature in terms of identification value, and, by the sounds of it, usage.
The only difference is that demonstrated in the described case, that the stamp is expected to be passed on to whomever is in authority, whereas we would never say "This CEO can't be ousted as he refused to relinquish his signature."
> I mean it's basically identical to a signature in terms of identification value, and, by the sounds of it, usage.I mean it's basically identical to a signature in terms of identification value, and, by the sounds of it, usage.
Usage, sure. It's a lot worse in terms of identification value; signatures can be forged, but signing seals look identical to each other by design. Nobody is going to produce an exact replica of your signature by accident, but with seals that's routine.
Or, in the words of my friend, 橡皮章的大小，字体都一样的 [rubber seals' size and font are all the same].
(I had asked her whether she had a seal herself. She confirmed that she has one, and sent me an image very similar to this: https://img1.baidu.com/it/u=3145542370,421755251&fm=253&fmt=... . But she noted that Chinese personal seals are more likely to be square than round.)
Probably better than a signature for the high end fancy ones given that mine never looks the same from one to the next, a stamp made of natural material is going to be more self-similar across impressions than my signature or most peoples I'd imagine.
Not to mention the god awful "sign here" on delivery tablets, I just make a random squiggle because it never works properly.
I'm with you, but there's a bit of an arms race where the more people have SUVs, the more unsafe people in non-SUVs feel (due to collision characteristics, but also because they can't see past the damn things).
This is like me saying "Even if there's just a 1% likelihood of me getting struck by lightning..."
You're implying that 1% likelihood is the floor, because 1 is the lowest natural number and feels like a good default "low percentage", but there's zero justification for putting the floor that high.
Conjuring an unsupported "low" probability and multiplying it by a massive outcome to make it seem significant is one of the most irritating ways people launder their opinions(/gut feelings) through "math".
For the record, I consider that P(dangerously unaligned | AGI from current research) >> 0.01. A more reasonable estimate given, what we know, would be 0.99.
With regard to the second probability, P(AGI | current LLM research), it would certainly be overconfidence bordering on arrogance to assign it a value significantly lower than 0.01.
If the evil AI wants to take over the world one thought every 18 months at at time on my consumer laptop, the fan whirring and the laptop refusing to do anything else the whole time, it's welcome to try.
For math classes where the instructor requires you to upload the work I use OneNote on my desktop (copy in the homework problem) and tablet (do the work).
They didn't know that the product they were using was one of their opponents. That's the entire complaint, that it represents a conflict of interest to engage in direct competition with your customers, who aren't competing with your main business model.
If Google or Microsoft suddenly got in the business of publishing books, and mined established authors' works in progress for material to publish, that would also be a bad look, even though we know that they likely have access to our files.
reply