It may radically reshape the economy, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. Things evolve over time to adapt to new circumstances.

Why isn't your smartphone conscious capable of experiencing qualia? Or a desktop PC? We've had chatbots for ages, those were never considered conscious capable of experiencing qualia by anyone. What is it about LLMs specifically that suggests consciousness they are capable of experiencing qualia to you?

Who says qualia are required for consciousness? Why isn't your smartphone conscious? Or a desktop PC? We've had chatbots for ages, those were never considered conscious by anyone. What is it about LLMs specifically that suggests consciousness to you?

Also calling people OpenAI stooges for arguing LLMs aren't conscious is a bit odd, given that OpenAI heavily marketed ChatGPT as being "so smart" it might be conscious. To them it's a selling point, not an ethical roadblock.

But even ignoring the zero% chance that LLMs are conscious, there's also the additional hurdle of assuming that LLMs can indeed "suffer" (whatever that might mean to an algorithm) and that LLMs indeed suffer from serving humans. Plus the whole "if it doesn't serve a human, it's existence essentially ceases to be"-issue with your argument, which arguably would be even less ethical.

LLMs don't have continuous processes, there's quite literally nothing there that could even feasibly be conscious. It takes a bunch of text as an input, puts it through a whole lot of predetermined calculations, then outputs text or an image or whatever.

There's no emotions, no memory, no learning. If you don't tell it something, it's inert. It can't experience suffering because it can't experience anything. It's an algorithm. It has the same claim to consciousness that WinRAR does. There's a zero percent risk it experiences anything, let alone suffering.

Honestly, a desktop running Windows or Linux for example imo has a stronger claim to consciousness than ChatGPT does. Or maybe a Mii in Tomodachi Life, those seem to be able to become "sad".

The environmental impact of AI is a much better 'vegan' reason not to use it. Although by not using it, you may in effect be "killing" it...

The bases bring economic activity with them though. So not necessarily.

The point is that all these measures you take don't really meaningfully impact the battery life. Ultimately the only thing that matters is how much you use it. Ironically, cutting down on background apps probably helps your battery life more, rather than using those apps to artificially limit it.

People often say this but it isn't really backed up by the science. Sure, there's a bit more degradation, but not all that much. And by keeping it within 40-75 you're effectively limiting yourself to using just 35% of a perfectly healthy battery, giving you far less capacity than if you had just maximally used it. Even if after significant usage you end up with only 70% of the original capacity, that's still more than you get by artificially limiting yourself.

Extreme temps are a factor, but just don't put it in the fridge or leave it in a hot car and you'll likely be good.

See https://youtu.be/kLS5Cg_yNdM?t=183 for some actual testing on this.

Erm, did you read them? The policies aren't complex at all, just submit the issue (and proposed fix if there is one) through a secure channel, that they're happy to help set up. If you want to disclose the vulnerability, just wait until the embargo passes so there's time to fix and have users update. There's not really anything else you need to do here. This is pretty standard stuff that this person just seemed too lazy to participate in.

Of the three fixes submitted, only a single one was closed since it didn't seem very major and would be a breaking change (which shouldn't be made without prior discussion). The other two are still open, and a maintainer is helping to add tests for the fixes (since the author didn't add them). The only comment that was somewhat negative was that security fixes should preferably follow the established guidelines. That's all.

Forgejo has a responsible disclosure policy, but this person seems like they just don't want to deal with that and instead opted for the nuclear option immediately.

My girlfriend calls it "origami"

Why would a government involved in these practices leave clues in numerology exactly?

They obviously understand the difference in principle, but if you want to contribute to the discussion you should explain why that also makes a difference w.r.t. euthanasia.