The competence threshold can vary according to the model's complexity and cost to run, but the broader point remains that having a human operator of greater competence that can evaluate the output and understand potential harms that might result seems to be a valid one. Depending on domain, it can be irresponsible to deploy systems you don't fully understand that could harm others. Responsibly overseeing 37k lines of code a day sounds exhausting.
Not as many changes to the files under library as I expected to see. Most changes seemed to be under a single ‘add stuff’ commit. If some of the solvers are randomised, then repeatedly running and recording best solution found will continually improve over time and give the illusion of the agent making algorithmic advancements, won’t it?
I guess my point was that I don't see many algo changes in the commit history, which is a shame if this has been lost; library/* files are largely unchanged from the initial commits. But each time the agent runs, it has access to the best solutions found so far and can start from there, often using randomisation, which the agent claims helps it escape local minima e.g. 'simulated annealing as a universal improver'. It would be nice to see how its learnt knowledge performs when applied to unseen problems in a restricted timeframe.
Locking down children’s devices doesn’t stop adults sharing illegal content with other adults though, so there would still be pressure to monitor communications between adults.
At some points, laws become an ineffective tool to prevent malevolent people to act in detrimental manners, no matter what it states. But prejudices of wicked states will always continue to impact more badly general public as ever more drastic laws lacking any balance become enacted.
What if while you were eating a cheeseburger, McDonald’s was magically replenishing that burger so that no matter how much you kept eating there was still some left. Moreover you had little control over the ratios of fat and sugar used to replenish it and they earned more the longer you spent eating it. Would you consider them harming you if they were prioritising stuffing it with ingredients that maximised the amount you ate and ignored sensible limits on sugar and fat?
Isn’t the information flow being controlled by the few major social media players another form of centralisation where their algorithms decide which decentralised voices are heard?
Or if they took my deposit and commingled it with company funds and bought some illiquid luxury real estate in the Bahamas for their staff to live in totalling $240m. If they’re upfront about that, probably nobody deposits with them.
reply