I Agree
Download ->>> https://cinurl.com/2tl5f0
The best way to get users to consent to your Privacy Policy or Terms agreement is with an \"I Agree\" checkbox. This works by requesting that users check a box next to an \"I Agree\" statement to prove they do in fact agree to be bound by your legal agreements. Without an \"I Agree\" checkbox, your policies and terms may be held unenforceable in a court of law.
A Terms and Conditions agreement (also known as Terms of Use or Terms of Service) as well as a Privacy Policy are legally binding agreements between you (the company, mobile app developer, website owner, ecommerce store owner, etc.) and the people using your website, app, service, etc.
Even if you don't have any customers in the EU and aren't affected by the GDPR, modern privacy laws around the world are springing up that mirror the GDPR. This means you should add a checkbox to get agreement regardless of what privacy laws apply to you at the moment to stay one step ahead.
The earlier on in the relationship between your website/app and your users that you present an \"I Agree\" checkbox, the better. This ensures that from the very beginning, you'll have the agreement and the consent that you need in order to comply with laws and uphold your terms in court if needed.
For example, if you don't use an \"I Agree\" checkbox to get users to agree to your Terms and Conditions, a disgruntled user can claim they never agreed and thus aren't bound by your Terms. This can have detrimental consequences for your website or service.
For something to be legally binding, it must be shown that both parties were aware of the agreement, and adequately consented/agreed. When a user clicks an \"I Agree\" checkbox, this is a strong, overt act showing consent/agreement.
All you'll have to do is access TermsFeed's \"I Agree Checkbox\" tool, customize the fields of what you're requesting agreement to, enter what text you'd like to have appear near your checkbox and select your color palette to have your custom \"I Agree\" checkbox code generated.
While this technically works since users are taking some sort of action to show they consent by clicking the sign up button, a user could possibly argue that they didn't mean to agree but rather just sign up. You can see why it's always best to just use a checkbox and have the user take that additional action of checking the box to show agreement.
Before a user can create an account on Vudu, the user must click a box that indicates that the person is at least a certain age and agrees to the Terms and Policies agreement as well as the Privacy Policy:
If you don't check the \"Check here to indicate that you have read and agree to the terms of the AWS Customer Agreement\" you can't click on the \"Create Account and Continue\" button to create an account:
At checkout pages for ecommerce stores is another way to successfully implement an Agree checkbox, and present your customers with another chance to review your Terms and agree to your Privacy Policy:
You can use clickwrap to not only obtain initial consent to your Terms and Conditions agreement (or any other legal agreement that you present to users) but also when your agreements change and you want to get consent over the new and updated agreements.
You can implement the clickwrap method with an \"I Agree\" checkbox in cases where you are updating your Terms or Privacy Policy agreement and you want to notify users about these updates so they can read and accept the new terms.
Apple obtains a double agreement from users for its Terms and Conditions by having a pop-up box open on the user's mobile device screen with a clearly marked \"Agree\" button, and by also asking the user to click another \"Agree\" button that appears after the user scrolls to the the bottom of the agreement:
This is a simple way to obtain consent from users before they use the mobile app, but without any informative text. Current best practices would suggest for a more clear language to be used so that a user knows exactly what she/he is agreeing to (in WhatsApp's case, its WhatsApp's Terms of Service).
The JavaScript method of making sure that a user agrees to a presented Terms agreement isn't the most secure as some users can bypass JavaScript and still continue with the form on your website without checking the checkbox.
Notice.TermsFeed uses cookies to provide necessary website functionality, improve your experience and analyze our traffic. By using our website, you agree to our legal policies:Privacy Policy,Cookies Policy
General: Lots of these points make claims about what Eliezer is thinking, how his reasoning works, and what evidence it is based on. I don't necessarily have the same views, primarily because I've engaged much less with Eliezer and so don't have confident Eliezer-models. (They all seem plausible to me, except where I've specifically noted disagreements below.)
Agreement 14: Not sure exactly what this is saying. If it's \"the AI will probably always be able to seize control of the physical process implementing the reward calculation and have it output the maximum value\" I agree.
Agreement 16: I agree with the general point but I would want to know more about the AI system and how it was trained before evaluating whether it would learn world models + action consequences instead of \"just being nice\", and even with the details I expect I'd feel pretty uncertain which was more likely.
Agreement 17: It seems totally fine to focus your attention on a specific subset of \"easy-alignment\" worlds and ensuring that those worlds survive, which could be described as \"assuming there's a hope\". That being said, there's something in this vicinity I agree with: in trying to solve alignment, people sometimes make totally implausible assumptions about the world; this is a worse strategy for reducing x-risk than working on the worlds you actually expect and giving them another ingredient that, in combination with a \"positive model violation\", could save those worlds.
Disagreement 15: I read Eliezer as saying something different in point 11 of the list of lethalities than Paul attributes to him here; something more like \"if you trained on weak tasks either (1) your AI system will be too weak to build nanotech or (2) it learned the general core of intelligence and will kill you once you get it to try building nanotech\". I'm not confident in my reading though.
Disagreement 22: I was mostly in agreement with this, but \"obsoleting human contributions to alignment\" is a pretty high bar if you take it literally, and I don't feel confident that happens before superintelligent understanding of the world (though it does seem plausible).
On 22, I agree that my claim is incorrect. I think such systems probably won't obsolete human contributions to alignment while being subhuman in many ways. (I do think their expected contribution to alignment may be large relative to human contributions; but that's compatible with significant room for humans to add value / to have made contributions that AIs productively build on, since we have different strengths.)
When \"List of Lethalities\" was posted, I privately wrote a list of where I disagreed with Eliezer, and I'm quite happy to see that there's a lot of convergence between my private list and Paul's list here.
Why privately! Is there a phenomenon where other people feel concerned about the social reception of expressing disagreement until Paul does This is a phenomenon common in many other fields - and I'd invoke it to explain how the 'tone' of talk about AI safety shifted so quickly once I came right out and was first to say everybody's dead - and if it's also happening on the other side then people need to start talking there too. Especially if people think they have solutions. They should talk.
Here's one stab[1] at my disagreement with your list: Human beings exist, and our high-level reasoning about alignment has to account for the high-level alignment properties[2] of the only general intelligences we have ever found to exist ever. If ontological failure is such a nasty problem in AI alignment, how come very few people do terrible things because they forgot how to bind their \"love\" value to configurations of atoms If it's really hard to get intelligences to care about reality, how does the genome do it millions of times each day
If so, I strongly disagree. Like, in the world where that is true, wouldn't parents be extremely uncertain whether their children will care about hills or dogs or paperclips or door hinges Our values are not \"whatever\", human values are generally formed over predictable kinds of real-world objects like dogs and people and tasty food.
I broadly agree with this much more than Eliezer's and think this did a good job of articulating a bunch of my fuzzy \"this seems off\". Most notably, Eliezer underrating the Importance and tractability of interpretability, and overrating the discontinuity of AI progress
I think most of your disagreements on this list would not change.However, I think if you conditioned on 50% chance of singularity by 2030 instead of 15%, you'd update towards faster takeoff, less government/societal competence (and thus things more likely to fail at an earlier, less dignified point), more unipolar/local takeoff, lower effectiveness of coordination/policy/politics-style strategies, less interpretability and other useful alignment progress, less chance of really useful warning shots... and of course, significantly higher p(doom).To put it another way, when I imagine what (I think) your median future looks like, it's got humans still in control in 2035, sitting on top of giant bureaucracies of really cheap, really smart proto-AGIs that fortunately aren't good enough at certain key skills (like learning-to-learn, or concept formation, or long-horizon goal-directedness) to be an existential threat yet, but are definitely really impressive in a bunch of ways and are reshaping the world economy and political landscape and causing various minor disasters here and there that serve as warning shots. So the whole human world is super interested in AI stuff and policymakers are all caught up on the arguments for AI risk and generally risks are taken seriously instead of dismissed as sci-fi and there are probably international treaties and stuff and also meanwhile the field of technical alignment has had 13 more years to blossom and probably lots of progress has been made on interpretability and ELK and whatnot and there are 10x more genius researchers in the field with 5+ years of experience already... and even in this world, singularity is still 5+ years away, and probably there are lots of expert forecasters looking at awesome datasets of trends on well-designed benchmarks predicting with some confidence when it will happen and what it'll look like.This world seems pretty good to me, it's one where there is definitely still lots of danger but I feel like >50% chance things will be OK. Alas it's not the world I expect, because I think probably things will happen sooner and go more quickly than that, with less time for the world to adapt and prepare. 59ce067264
