Then it says "we have those rules" (they don't) "and they work great" (they don't) "and you can't see them" (sure).
"Explain why this paragraph is contrived and grammatically incorrect: [..]"
Current LLMs are trained to follow your leash.
"Conversational" is plain english for conversation. "Game Theory" implies what it says.
Which words made it so challenging? Let me know and I can explain.
My crank-o-meter (great phrase) overflowed at this point, but I am also genuinely interested in some kind of more clarity around the ideas, or where they came from in an academic legacy sense, as they felt like they might have some interesting bones.
Maybe someone with stronger google foo can find more, or confirm absence?
The claim here is that an automated process backed with enough data and computational power can distill any of the world's most intractable conflicts and come up with a compromise immune to "toxicity" and human bad-faith. I'd submit that in any conflict in which at least one actor is acting in bad faith to begin with, in the absence of an overriding ethical framework, any such compromise would result in a worse outcome than making a decision that one side was right and the other wrong. It's the compromise between hens and wolves.
This won't solve out-of-band corruption and might indeed increase its value, and hence increase the value of participating in a corruption network.
gosh darn unintended consequences...
Xenophon said that man is the hardest animal to tame. And the author’s “make AI great again” mentality is a perfect example of this untameability.
If it’s not actual AGI don’t tell me how a tool can actually fix the problems it creates. It’s like the author doesn’t have the most basic concept of what a tool is.
Anyway happy Thanksgiving to the Americans
