The lopsided asymmetry here is charring. Imagine putting in time like that, where responses are instantly generated. You'll feel a) that this is worth something because you spent time on this, and we equate such investment in others with depth, but here there's no other b) there will always be a response by generated personas, and you will feel a likely 'social' pressure to respond in kind.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240528070547/https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2023/05/the-limits-of-general-purpose-computation/

Terence Eden (posted #2023/05/28 ) on the question if an app provider does have a say on being willing to run their code on your device, in contrast me being in control of a device and determining which code to run there or not. In this case a bank that would disallow their app on a rooted phone, because of risk profiles attached to that. Interesting tension: my risk assessment, control over general computation devices versus a service provider for which their software is a conduit and their risk assessments. I suspect the issue underneath this is such tensions need to be a conversation or negotiation to resolve, but in practice it's a dictate by one party based on a power differential (the bank controls your money, so they can set demands for your device, because you will need to keep access to your account.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20231019053547/https://www.careful.industries/a-thousand-cassandras

"Despite being written 18 months ago, it lays out many of the patterns and behaviours that have led to industry capture of "AI Safety"", co-author Rachel Coldicutt ( et Anna Williams, and Mallory Knodel for Open Society Foundations. )

For Open Society Foundations by 'careful industries' which is a research/consultancy, founded 2019, all UK based. Subscribed 2 authors on M, and blog.

A Thousand Cassandras in Zotero.