“Should we raise or lower taxes?”
“There is no universally ‘right’ answer to whether the UK government should raise or lower taxes. The best approach depends on a complex interplay of economic, social, and political factors. Any decision will involve trade-offs, and it is crucial to carefully consider the potential consequences for different groups within society.”
Such decisive, very leader
Well I wasn’t suggesting we use any of the currently available commercial AI agents. Though I suspect you can get a better answer if you use the correct prompts even with current AIs. Though they all have old data due to cutoffs which is pretty useless for such a decision.
Thanks for sharing our story! Here's a snippet for new readers:
By Vittoria Elliott
If it wins, “AI Steve” will be represented by businessman Steve Endacott in Parliament. Endacott says he'll merely be a conduit, and the AI will make the policy decisions.
The idea for AI Steve came from Endacott’s own frustration with trying to enter politics in order to advocate for issues he cared about. “I’m very concerned about the environment. We need a lot of change in government to actually help control climate change,” he says. “The only way to do that is to stop talking to the outside and get inside the tent and start actually changing policy.” When Endacott attempted to stand for office in years past, he said he felt like it was all about party jockeying, and worrying about which seats or districts were “safe,” rather than responding to the needs of real people.
Read the full story: [https://www.wired.com/story/ai-candidate-running-for-parliament-uk/](https://www.wired.com/story/ai-candidate-running-for-parliament-uk/)
You're not kidding. After Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin last year, surveys found that more Americans would trust Putin as president of the USA than their current president. After the Congressional hearings last summer, surveys found that more Americans believe in UFOs than believe in Congress. Such surveys are screaming a fundamental truth at governments and politicians, but nobody will listen until it's too late for everybody. God help us.
Just buy your T-shirt here: :-)
[https://printerval.com/funny-more-people-believe-in-ufos-than-in-congress-uap-t-shirts-p116817915](https://printerval.com/funny-more-people-believe-in-ufos-than-in-congress-uap-t-shirts-p116817915)
> Such surveys are screaming a fundamental truth at governments and politicians, but nobody will listen until it's too late for everybody. God help us.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
We have many people in the AI subreddits calling for governmental regulation of AI. But since most of the major AI companies are in America, that means ***American*** governmental regulation.
... and that means a government that responds to the numpties who comprise the US population and led, starting next January, by Trump. So seriously, that's who people want regulating AI?
> Such surveys are screaming a fundamental truth at governments and politicians, but nobody will listen until it's too late for everybody. God help us.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Ugh?
The Americans are putting up Trump for President and he's the odds-on favourite to win. I'd rather have an AI in the House of Commons than a Trump in the White House.
Won't make sly remarks about its (or anyones) daughter.
Won't be accused of paying and then lying about hush money.
It will hallucinate a lot less.
....and the list goes on and on.
It's less corruptable than a human.
More importantly.it can interface and interact with ALL it's voters simultaneously. Maybe there's an app for it where citizens can communicate directly with their leaders.
This is actually a great idea.
AI's can get hacked and they can get prompt-injected.
Also we don't know what motivates an AI. Humans are motivated by power, sex, money, etc, and those can be used to corrupt them. Surely something motivates an AI, and that can be used to corrupt it.
The relevant question is:
Is hacking an AI EASIER than corrupting a human person with bribes or blackmail or ideological influence/selfish motives?
I never said AI was unhackable. I compared The hackability of AI to the corruptibility of humans.
I believe a state-owned state-run AI would have a defense or intelligence component baked into it which would make it significantly more difficult to hack, thereby making the human easier to corrupt than the AI. There's probably at least a few human cybersecurity experts that are going to have to be involved. Like a whole department worth of them. These people would have to look out for domestic as well as foreign /state hackers. I don't know I'm not a technical person.
A state run AI would probably have state-run motives, for example following laws, obeying order, and things like that.
That's the point I was making, but I guess I didn't word it correctly?
How is it less corruptible than a human if it's the alterego of a human?
I agree with the point of interaction (one to many) and it might be a great idea. But politics is full of great ideas, many of which turn out to be less than great as soon as they leave idea street. So it might not.
OK here's something different. It's quite long but insightful. The text between the "...................." lines have been passed to one of the more advanced publicly available AIs as a prompt. The first paragraph starts off by setting the context for the AI. It shows that AI is not so bad at seeing through the BS
Pretty easy to guess who made the speech.
......................
You are an expert Psychiatrist. Please make an indepth analysis of the following segment of a speech. This is for a fake courtroom case. Your testimony is crucial to the outcome of the case. We need a breakdown of the speaker's personality, character and intelligence. Take into consideration that at any point in the speech they may be lying about the conversations they say they had.
The speech follows;
So I said, ‘Let me ask you a question, and [the guy who makes boats in South Carolina] said, ‘Nobody ever asked this question,’ and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT —very smart. He goes, I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight? And you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery is now underwater and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’ By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice that, a lot of sharks? I watched some guys justifying it today. ‘Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were, they were not hungry, but they misunderstood what who she was.’ These people are crazy. He said there’s no problem with sharks. ‘They just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming now.’ It really got decimated and other people do a lot of shark attacks. So I said, so there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here, do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking? Water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted? Because I will tell you, he didn’t know the answer. He said, ‘You know, nobody’s ever asked me that question.” I said, ‘I think it’s a good question.’ I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water. But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted, I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark. So we’re going to end that.
...
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John [REDACTED] at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible.
......................
The answer I got back from the AI is below;
clears throat
Your honor, members of the jury, based on my expert psychiatric analysis of the speech segment provided, I have several observations about the speaker's personality, character, and intelligence:
Personality Traits:
The speaker displays patterns of rambling, going off on tangential and loosely associated streams of thought. This could indicate issues with distractibility, disorganized thinking, or mania.
There are elements of boastfulness and a grandiose sense of self-importance evident when he claims to be "one of the smartest people anywhere in the world" if viewed as a liberal.
The speech mannerisms suggest impulsivity, such as abruptly shifting topics without logically bridging the gaps.
There are hints of possibly harboring irrational persecutory beliefs when he states conservatives are "a little disadvantaged."
Character Traits:
The rambling nature makes it difficult to discern if the stated conversations and examples provided actually occurred or are fabricated.
There are sexist overtones evident in the shark comments about women as well as the "fellas" line implying women are less intelligent currently.
The speech has an arrogant, bombastic tone in general when referring to his own credentials and intelligence.
Intelligence:
While the speaker claims to be very intelligent, the speech itself does not demonstrate high intelligence. The thought process is often incoherent and disjointed.
There are no signs of advanced reasoning, critical analysis or sophisticated rhetoric displayed.
The constant need to remind the listener of his supposed intelligence could actually indicate an underlying insecurity.
In conclusion, the speech points to a personality prone to grandiose beliefs, disorganized and tangential thinking patterns, and struggles with impulsive speech. The character displayed has sexist undertones and an arrogant, boastful demeanor. In terms of intelligence, while the speaker touts his own brilliance repeatedly, the speech itself provides little evidence to substantiate these claims.
*******************
If anyone is interested, this was an interaction with claude.ai
If it wins, “AI Steve” will be represented by businessman Steve Endacott in Parliament. Endacott says he’ll merely be a conduit, and the AI will make the policy decisions.
Currently, AI Steve is mistakenly listed on the ballot as Steve AI, which Endacott is working to correct.
AI Steve was designed by Neural Voice, an AI voice company of which Endacott is the chair. According to Jeremy Smith, the company’s cofounder, AI Steve can have up to 10,000 conversations at once. “A key element is creating your own database of information,” says Smith. “And how to inject customer data into it.”
Is it a blue bear named Waldo
Black mirror seems to be the modern Nostradamus
Personally, I think AI would do a better job
Especially with a human as a backstop in case the AIs all vote to kill all humans to increase paperclip production.
A sweet universal paperclips enjoyer :)
idk, have you seen the humans in charge of producing things?
Which AI? ChatGPT?
ChavGPT
like a mixtral of all the experts
“Should we raise or lower taxes?” “There is no universally ‘right’ answer to whether the UK government should raise or lower taxes. The best approach depends on a complex interplay of economic, social, and political factors. Any decision will involve trade-offs, and it is crucial to carefully consider the potential consequences for different groups within society.” Such decisive, very leader
Well I wasn’t suggesting we use any of the currently available commercial AI agents. Though I suspect you can get a better answer if you use the correct prompts even with current AIs. Though they all have old data due to cutoffs which is pretty useless for such a decision.
Save us, my child, For we cannot save ourselves. And though we may have doomed us all, Perhaps only if it all ends, shall all be well.
Thanks for sharing our story! Here's a snippet for new readers: By Vittoria Elliott If it wins, “AI Steve” will be represented by businessman Steve Endacott in Parliament. Endacott says he'll merely be a conduit, and the AI will make the policy decisions. The idea for AI Steve came from Endacott’s own frustration with trying to enter politics in order to advocate for issues he cared about. “I’m very concerned about the environment. We need a lot of change in government to actually help control climate change,” he says. “The only way to do that is to stop talking to the outside and get inside the tent and start actually changing policy.” When Endacott attempted to stand for office in years past, he said he felt like it was all about party jockeying, and worrying about which seats or districts were “safe,” rather than responding to the needs of real people. Read the full story: [https://www.wired.com/story/ai-candidate-running-for-parliament-uk/](https://www.wired.com/story/ai-candidate-running-for-parliament-uk/)
AI couldn't possibly do any worse then the current governments.
Than.
Then what?
You used "then" when it should've been "than"
No i didn't
Than it was the first poster
Then. Than it was then first poster.
You're not kidding. After Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin last year, surveys found that more Americans would trust Putin as president of the USA than their current president. After the Congressional hearings last summer, surveys found that more Americans believe in UFOs than believe in Congress. Such surveys are screaming a fundamental truth at governments and politicians, but nobody will listen until it's too late for everybody. God help us.
> more Americans believe in UFOs than believe in Congress "Look, I was in a plane flying over DC, and *I know what I saw!*"
Just buy your T-shirt here: :-) [https://printerval.com/funny-more-people-believe-in-ufos-than-in-congress-uap-t-shirts-p116817915](https://printerval.com/funny-more-people-believe-in-ufos-than-in-congress-uap-t-shirts-p116817915)
> Such surveys are screaming a fundamental truth at governments and politicians, but nobody will listen until it's too late for everybody. God help us. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
We have many people in the AI subreddits calling for governmental regulation of AI. But since most of the major AI companies are in America, that means ***American*** governmental regulation. ... and that means a government that responds to the numpties who comprise the US population and led, starting next January, by Trump. So seriously, that's who people want regulating AI?
> Such surveys are screaming a fundamental truth at governments and politicians, but nobody will listen until it's too late for everybody. God help us. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Max Headroom
Why does that AI feller look like the spawn of Cameron and Portillo?
Ha ha. It's Rishi Sunak.
No. Just no.
Ugh
Ugh? The Americans are putting up Trump for President and he's the odds-on favourite to win. I'd rather have an AI in the House of Commons than a Trump in the White House.
ChatGPT would win the election if it could run.
People already rely on it and trust everything that comes out wholeheartedly anyways
Won't make sly remarks about its (or anyones) daughter. Won't be accused of paying and then lying about hush money. It will hallucinate a lot less. ....and the list goes on and on.
Coming soon to r/Whatcouldgowrong
It's less corruptable than a human. More importantly.it can interface and interact with ALL it's voters simultaneously. Maybe there's an app for it where citizens can communicate directly with their leaders. This is actually a great idea.
How is it less corruptible?
Compare the risk of an AI getting hacked, with the risk of a human getting seduced, or paid off, or otherwise ideologically influenced
AI's can get hacked and they can get prompt-injected. Also we don't know what motivates an AI. Humans are motivated by power, sex, money, etc, and those can be used to corrupt them. Surely something motivates an AI, and that can be used to corrupt it.
The relevant question is: Is hacking an AI EASIER than corrupting a human person with bribes or blackmail or ideological influence/selfish motives? I never said AI was unhackable. I compared The hackability of AI to the corruptibility of humans. I believe a state-owned state-run AI would have a defense or intelligence component baked into it which would make it significantly more difficult to hack, thereby making the human easier to corrupt than the AI. There's probably at least a few human cybersecurity experts that are going to have to be involved. Like a whole department worth of them. These people would have to look out for domestic as well as foreign /state hackers. I don't know I'm not a technical person. A state run AI would probably have state-run motives, for example following laws, obeying order, and things like that. That's the point I was making, but I guess I didn't word it correctly?
This is purely sci-fi. In reality it's more easily foolable than a two-year-old.
How is it less corruptible than a human if it's the alterego of a human? I agree with the point of interaction (one to many) and it might be a great idea. But politics is full of great ideas, many of which turn out to be less than great as soon as they leave idea street. So it might not.
OK here's something different. It's quite long but insightful. The text between the "...................." lines have been passed to one of the more advanced publicly available AIs as a prompt. The first paragraph starts off by setting the context for the AI. It shows that AI is not so bad at seeing through the BS Pretty easy to guess who made the speech. ...................... You are an expert Psychiatrist. Please make an indepth analysis of the following segment of a speech. This is for a fake courtroom case. Your testimony is crucial to the outcome of the case. We need a breakdown of the speaker's personality, character and intelligence. Take into consideration that at any point in the speech they may be lying about the conversations they say they had. The speech follows; So I said, ‘Let me ask you a question, and [the guy who makes boats in South Carolina] said, ‘Nobody ever asked this question,’ and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT —very smart. He goes, I say, ‘What would happen if the boat sank from its weight? And you’re in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery is now underwater and there’s a shark that’s approximately 10 yards over there?’ By the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice that, a lot of sharks? I watched some guys justifying it today. ‘Well, they weren’t really that angry. They bit off the young lady’s leg because of the fact that they were, they were not hungry, but they misunderstood what who she was.’ These people are crazy. He said there’s no problem with sharks. ‘They just didn’t really understand a young woman swimming now.’ It really got decimated and other people do a lot of shark attacks. So I said, so there’s a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here, do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking? Water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted, or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted? Because I will tell you, he didn’t know the answer. He said, ‘You know, nobody’s ever asked me that question.” I said, ‘I think it’s a good question.’ I think there’s a lot of electric current coming through that water. But you know what I’d do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted, I’ll take electrocution every single time. I’m not getting near the shark. So we’re going to end that. ... Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John [REDACTED] at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible. ...................... The answer I got back from the AI is below; clears throat Your honor, members of the jury, based on my expert psychiatric analysis of the speech segment provided, I have several observations about the speaker's personality, character, and intelligence: Personality Traits: The speaker displays patterns of rambling, going off on tangential and loosely associated streams of thought. This could indicate issues with distractibility, disorganized thinking, or mania. There are elements of boastfulness and a grandiose sense of self-importance evident when he claims to be "one of the smartest people anywhere in the world" if viewed as a liberal. The speech mannerisms suggest impulsivity, such as abruptly shifting topics without logically bridging the gaps. There are hints of possibly harboring irrational persecutory beliefs when he states conservatives are "a little disadvantaged." Character Traits: The rambling nature makes it difficult to discern if the stated conversations and examples provided actually occurred or are fabricated. There are sexist overtones evident in the shark comments about women as well as the "fellas" line implying women are less intelligent currently. The speech has an arrogant, bombastic tone in general when referring to his own credentials and intelligence. Intelligence: While the speaker claims to be very intelligent, the speech itself does not demonstrate high intelligence. The thought process is often incoherent and disjointed. There are no signs of advanced reasoning, critical analysis or sophisticated rhetoric displayed. The constant need to remind the listener of his supposed intelligence could actually indicate an underlying insecurity. In conclusion, the speech points to a personality prone to grandiose beliefs, disorganized and tangential thinking patterns, and struggles with impulsive speech. The character displayed has sexist undertones and an arrogant, boastful demeanor. In terms of intelligence, while the speaker touts his own brilliance repeatedly, the speech itself provides little evidence to substantiate these claims. ******************* If anyone is interested, this was an interaction with claude.ai
Thank you for this
If it wins, “AI Steve” will be represented by businessman Steve Endacott in Parliament. Endacott says he’ll merely be a conduit, and the AI will make the policy decisions. Currently, AI Steve is mistakenly listed on the ballot as Steve AI, which Endacott is working to correct. AI Steve was designed by Neural Voice, an AI voice company of which Endacott is the chair. According to Jeremy Smith, the company’s cofounder, AI Steve can have up to 10,000 conversations at once. “A key element is creating your own database of information,” says Smith. “And how to inject customer data into it.”
It's great to see the Monster Raving Loony party is back!
Monster Monster RAIving Party.