So is human consciousness. We are also dynamic and constantly changing, self awareness/consciousness is a conditioned process. There is no unchanging "you" or a little man inside controlling things, there's no narrator just the narration.
Do we care because we can reason and have meta cognition? Or are the narratives we build, built by our brains only after the fact to justify our biological actions? If an ecosystem's value is invalidated because its dynamic or ephemeral and lacking a permanent core then human consciousness also fails the same test. We can't dismiss nature as a naive projection while also treating our own post-hoc narrative making as the only real thing in the universe, its a double standard.
If the process that produces meaning is just another temporary biological phenomenon, which it likely is, then we (humans) are not special observers, we are then just one more thing shifting inside the same system we are trying to pave over.
That's the absurdity of this. We are trying to measure LLMs against something we don't even have an accurate definition of ourselves. If we don't fully know what consciousness is, how can we confidently determine whether or not an AI model has consciousness?
We extend moral considerations or legal protections to beings that have zero capacity to harm us back, though. The inability to fight back is the reason a lot of welfare protections exist in the first place.
That aside, if (and that's a really big if) we end up with a model that is sentient, as in has the capacity to suffer, using factory farming as justification to ignore model welfare is just admitting we intend to repeat the same abject moral failure again in the name of economic convenience.
I hope that we won't, but humans love cheap meat, and will probably love cheap intelligence as well.
Liquid glass didn't require any relearning at all, the iOS interface changed aesthetics, not functionality. The OS has worked largely the same for the past 10 years since the iPhone X.
But I fail to see how an AI generated interface would be any better. What if after several back and forth with the AI, it still can't get the design right for you just so? It's not deterministic, you might get a different result every time you open your phone. Expecting third party services to leave their APIs open just so OpenAI phones can consume them is awfully optimistic as the moment such a device becomes an existential threat to third parties, APIs will start getting locked down.
By all means, OpenAI should try, not saying they shouldn't, but I'm not optimistic it'll be a success. The smartphone is already basically peak form factor. No one is going to want to carry around a second device, which is why every other AI device/pin is DOA. It has to come out of the gate ready to fully replace someone's smartphone and the surrounding ecosystem of it or it also is DOA. Good camera? Support spotify/apple music? messaging, video calls, airdrop/nearbyshare, works with smartwatches and fitness trackers, etc. If it doesn't, it will fail.
And if it came to that, and that's how this OS worked, we'd see open APIs disappear real quick from all the popular services because of the support nightmare, and, services like Uber and others are going to want to maintain exclusivity with their first party app the moment vibe coding becomes that viable. APIs will get locked down, and we'll all be worse off for it.
If an "AI Phone" looks to be an existential threat to third party app devs and services, except everyone to do everything they can kill said AI Phone to protect their own products.
Tech companies already have a history of shutting down APIs as soon as someone actually uses the API to make something that users like better than the official applications. They don't need AI-written clients as an excuse.
It's a bit of a different world today then when BlackBerry dominated.
RIM essentially invented MDM which is what allowed it to take off in the enterprise, via BlackBerry Enterprise Server. Android and iOS didn't fully unseat them in the enterprise until third party MDMs were up to par and lock down the consumer devices just as effectively.
So whatever new phone/OS that wants to take a stab at the enterprise, out of the gate, must support MDM profiles from all the major ones at least (InTune, ManageEngine, MaaS360, etc.). Then, as you said, all the MFA apps, at least should have Slack/Teams, office apps, etc.
Not that it can't be done, but the cost of entry is much higher today if anyone wants to overcome the switching costs.
The cost of entry is higher, but everyone has more money though, in this analogy. AI can vibe code all that out if someone seriously wanted to compete.
Not only that, people have seriously memory holed the state the original iPhone launched in.
No App Store, only web apps, not even 3G, only Yahoo push mail, and tied to AT&T - who were loathed, because in many places they just sucked. And it succeeded anyway.
It was when Exchange push support came in the first major OS upgrade that corporate adoption exploded.
Simple baseball hat is one of the oldest tricks in the book and is a staple for a reason. The brim blocks your eyes and upper half of your face, facial recognition gets broken because the camera cannot find two eyes and a nose bridge, and the biggest one over these ridiculous patterns, zero suspicion. It's not weird to wear a hat, but you stand out immediately wearing any of these adversarial patterns.
Granted, a hat will not trick "person" detection, you'll still get picked up in the box, but any camera that records with motion will still detect you in the adversarial pattern too as a person, even if it doesn't pick up your face to ID you.
If I were up to anything nefarious, I'd rather blend in with other humans as much as possible, not stand out like a sore thumb.
Or they've hit diminishing returns that will collapse their valuation, so saying "this is a threat to humanity" sounds better than "This is about as good as the tech is going to be for a long time" to investors.
> The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads".
Or in the case of X, how about just let me browse without creating an account? Likewise with meta/FB, IG, etc. The reality is businesses and other services post here, share status updates, etc. often before their main pages. I'd like to read those, and yet I have no desire to actually post or interact with any of the content, just read it. I should not need an account for that.
Then the correct action is to either create a competitor, or point money/ad views at a competitor.
But like I said, the internet is largely unwilling to do this. You won't make a competitor that is a charity, and the internet at large won't point dollars and ad-views at a nascent start-up in the space.
Did you know that Facebook got started by scraping MySpace using people's real accounts they provided the passwords for, and Reddit got started by anonymously copying popular posts from Slashdot and Digg? Were these correct actions?
None of that has to do with blocking the content behind a login wall. X can still serve ads just fine to non-logged in users. I'm against the site running ads, at all, I'm against mandatory account creation. The internet ran ad supported without mandatory accounts for years.
The login wall provides one more avenue for profit: selling the data of logged-in users. A profile with a history of likes, read-times, etc is more valuable then a pair of eyeballs that are glazed-over and not clicking on an ad...
Is it that much more valuable to click on an ad than see it? I mean, network television operated on ads you can't click on for decades and made billion-dollar empires.
True, and Britain ruled the waves with wooden warships for a long time. But if they went back to wooden warships they would not rule the waves. The world has changed. Adblock, archive.is, third party mirrors all exist today.
If any of those were highly profitable, they would be able to grow. But more profit for them, means less profit for users, means they are stuck fighting over crumbs from Twitter.
The internet is happy to create alternatives. Network effects mean it's VERY hard to change the default social network once it's established.
I hate using facebook marketplace, but over the past 6-ish years everybody in my city has moved off craigslist to marketplace - so now I use marketplace because otherwise I can't sell my shit. Am I the problem?
- also, an aside, but threads has 400 mil monthly active users, or at least facebook says that. so ~70% of twitter's audience. But threads is even more locked down than twitter, so not really a win.
Is the person who stays home and doesn't vote the problem?
Network effects are strong, but trends can absolutely upend them with disruptions. This is much harder nowadays, because for each user who refuses ads or a subscription, your VC runway needs to be that much longer, or your megacorp parent (meta) needs to sustain you.
My core point is that if the internet hates the current status quo, they need to drop their current status quo (free/no ads or bust). We're stuck in a local minimum because people absolutely refuse to even consider the idea of paying (in any form) to move out of it, and they pat themselves on the back for it.
This isn’t voting, i’m just trying to sell or buy some crap. For a while I listed stuff both places. In your voting analogy i guess i was voting third party? After a few dozen times where the only responses were from marketplace - i moved on.
Blaming people for doing what’s simplest, is just a way to feel smug and superior.
They are just stories, but narrative stories work really well for human brains when it comes to psychological transformation.
I like to think of religions as psychological technology. One doesn’t have to believe the stories are real for them to still have power. One can engage with the fantastic map of the mind that Buddhism provides without literally believing a being achieved “enlightenment” under a tree. Likewise, in the Christian tradition, the desert fathers through Hesychasm realized much of the same stuff as Buddha, and one does not need to accept the dogma as true to make use of the technology.
Humans are myth-makers, and our brains have a neat ability to use myth to enact real change. Ricoeur dubbed something similar as the second naïveté, re-engaging with faiths after a period of rigorous critical doubt, seeing them for what they actually are, stories that provide a technology for the inner working of the human mind.
So is human consciousness. We are also dynamic and constantly changing, self awareness/consciousness is a conditioned process. There is no unchanging "you" or a little man inside controlling things, there's no narrator just the narration.
Do we care because we can reason and have meta cognition? Or are the narratives we build, built by our brains only after the fact to justify our biological actions? If an ecosystem's value is invalidated because its dynamic or ephemeral and lacking a permanent core then human consciousness also fails the same test. We can't dismiss nature as a naive projection while also treating our own post-hoc narrative making as the only real thing in the universe, its a double standard.
If the process that produces meaning is just another temporary biological phenomenon, which it likely is, then we (humans) are not special observers, we are then just one more thing shifting inside the same system we are trying to pave over.
reply