> Clogger relentlessly pursues just one objective: to maximize the chances that its candidate – the campaign that buys the services of Clogger Inc. – prevails in an election.
This is how people think arguments work. Assert nonsense and deduce more nonsense. This set doesn't even have a measure, so what is being maximized?
This is the lay view of AI, its a magic box that does what you want, or its a terrible box that does what you hate.
Content free fear mongering. What's so good about human will and democracy if its so fragile. The solutions are even more ridiculous.
> For example, regulation might require that campaign messages come with disclaimers when the content they contain is generated by machines rather than humans.
Because warning labels stop smoking? Why would warning matter? Doesn't the AI know about warning and still "maximize" something. There's gotta be some Rice's Theorem analogue that can shut down all these bad arguments which depending on maximizing "unspecified absurd property"
> Clogger relentlessly pursues just one objective: to maximize the chances that its candidate – the campaign that buys the services of Clogger Inc. – prevails in an election.
This is how people think arguments work. Assert nonsense and deduce more nonsense. This set doesn't even have a measure, so what is being maximized?
This is the lay view of AI, its a magic box that does what you want, or its a terrible box that does what you hate.
Content free fear mongering. What's so good about human will and democracy if its so fragile. The solutions are even more ridiculous.
> For example, regulation might require that campaign messages come with disclaimers when the content they contain is generated by machines rather than humans.
Because warning labels stop smoking? Why would warning matter? Doesn't the AI know about warning and still "maximize" something. There's gotta be some Rice's Theorem analogue that can shut down all these bad arguments which depending on maximizing "unspecified absurd property"