That's the point, isn't it? Creating images via AI offers nothing to society. Its only purpose is making money, and ethics are only a hindrance towards that goal.
> Stop doing things that hurt you !! You need to live your life like a min-max optimization for max lifespan. !! You haven't done your government mandated hour of exercise today, enjoy 30 days in prison !!
This wasn't even about that. It was about selling cigarettes to others, pretending to be a romantic rebel.
And freedom isn't absolute. There's no need to exaggerate 1984 style just because smoking is banned. You don't even have to stop smoking. You just can't start.
You WILL get your state mandated 1 hour of exercise everyday and you will eat your state mandated five servings of vegetables. You will not go outside for more than an hour a day to prevent skin cancer. If you were born after 2010, you will eat the state mandated bug-based red meat replacement. You don't even need to stop eating meat, you just can't start.
It's not always "market forces". Case in point: state sponsored hackers and trolls. What speaks against market forces here is that "the collapse of Near Eastern civilizations in 1177 BCE" is not really a profitable subject.
From what I understood at [1], Context.ai users "enable AI agents to perform actions across their external applications, facilitated via another 3rd-party service." I.e., it's designed to get someone's OAuth token and use it. Unless that is done really carefully, the risks are as high as the user's authorization goes. The danger doesn't only come from leaks, but also from agents, that can clear your db or directory at a whim.
That's an Ayn Rand type black and white view of society. Not so long ago, companies were supposed to (and many did) care for continuity, in a broad sense: survival, labor, customer, and product. Nowadays, you would add environment too. Shares were a way of getting more interest than a savings account. Heck, there were even cooperations in which the laborers were shareholders as well.
Think in terms of a dynamic system. Or in terms of "selfish gene", as I've observed it to be easier to talk about.
Any single person or group in a corporation is expendable. You can swap out the sales department or a CEO, and the corporation will continue on its course without a pause or major change of direction. No single person or group of people is in total control of the direction - what directs the corporation is the sum total of ideas, vibes, internal influences, bylaws, operating practices, assets, and external environment of competitors and markets and regulatory landscape. The people that make up a corporation may be diverse and have conflicting goals, but if there's one thing they're all aligned on, is that they all want to keep their jobs and increase their pay or influence. I.e. they want the corporation to go on, to survive at least to their next paycheck.
The end result is, a corporation can be seen as an independent entity - kinda like an animal (or a super-colony for more accurate comparison) with a survival drive independent of the people that form it.
If there is a single owner, could shut down the place, for example.
As I said, in my experience, the humans - interchangible or not, as customers, competitors, owners etc - determine what happens, not the corporation itself.
Can look at a corporate as "living thing" itself, but I think that underestimates the human side.
Then again, there are 100 billion highly interconnected neurons without a CEO, a CFO, a CTO, a COO, etc. Thinking that from 50, 500 or even 5000 barely connected people with exterior motivation some higher intelligence can emerge is naive. Do not anthropomorphize.
5000 barely connected people isn't a corporation, it's a mob. A corporation has more to it.
In fact people aren't much more important that the software that runs on them. Because that's what all the bureaucracy is - all those rules and bylaws and contractual obligations and checklists and playbooks and regulation - software running on a runtime made of meat, one form letter or internal memo at a time.
Most of the time, losing people is to corporation what clipping a toe nail is to an adult, or a bit flip to a modern computer - a non-event you barely notice and carry on.
> higher intelligence can emerge
Nobody said "higher intelligence". I mentioned animals, ant supercolonies, but the same patterns of behavior is visible in even most basic multi-cellular and single-cellular organisms.
> Do not anthropomorphize.
Nobody says you need to.
(Except with LLMs, where refusing to do so means you'll just remain confused about what can or cannot, should or should not, be done with them.)
That's the point, isn't it? Creating images via AI offers nothing to society. Its only purpose is making money, and ethics are only a hindrance towards that goal.
reply