I'm just curious how many days before Christmas would it have to be for him to not refer to it as "Christmas Eve^N".

Is Christmas Eve-Eve-Eve too much? You can't put a price on playing the victim.

They think raw milk is natural, but would they still feel that way if they knew how selectively bred all dairy cows are at this point? The DNA of the dairy cow is where the milk manufacturing pipeline begins. We didn't select for sanitary milk from the udder because we knew it could be pasturized later in the pipeline.

What the? I'm literally saying what action to take, what is happening? Is there maybe a bug where you only see the first few characters of my post? Are you able to read these characters I'm typing? Testing testing testing. Let me know how far you get. Maybe there's just too many words for you? Test test. Say "elephant" if you can read this.

This feels like the thesis for Lord of the Flies.

we will not land in a society where the general public profits from not having work. It will be the same owners of capital profiting as per usual.

If we do nothing, sure. I'm suggesting, like the article, that we do something.

The only sentiment I took issue with was the poster above who suggested that somehow the solution would be to delete/destroy illegally trained networks. I'm just saying that's not practical nor progressive. AI is here to stay, we just need to create legislature that ensures it works for us, especially when it couldn't have been built without us.

I didn't misinterpret what you were saying, everything I said applies to the specific case you lay out. If illegal networks were somehow entirely destroyed, someone would just make them again. That's my point, there's no way around that, there's just holding people accountable when they do it. IMO that takes the form of restitutions to the people proportional to profits.

For sure, here you go.

I understand that you are familiar with the buzzword "LLM", but let me introduce you to a different one: transformers.

Virtually all modern successful AIs are based on transformers, LLMs included. I agree that LLMs currently amount to a chinese-room-inspired parlor trick, but the money involved has no doubt advanced all transfomer-based AI research, both directly (what works for LLMs may generalize) and indirectly (the market demand for LLMs in consumer products has created the a demand for power and compute hardware).

We have transformer-based AI to thank for our understanding of the covid19 protein, and developing a safe and effective vaccine in a timely manner.

The massive demand for energy has convinced Microsoft, Meta, and others to invest in their own modern nuclear power plants, representing a monumental step forward in sustainable energy generation that we have been trying to convince the US government to take for decades.

Modern AI is being used to solve the hardest problems of nuclear fusion. If we can finally crack that nut, there's no telling what's possible.

But specifically when it comes to LLMs, profitable or not, people obviously find them useful. People aren't using it in place of search engines, or doing all their homework with it because they don't find it useful. My only argument is that any AI trained on public content without consent should be required to effectively buy a license from, or pay royalties to the public. If McDonald's is going to replace their front counters with AI trained on public content, then they should have to pay taxes proportional to how much use they get from that AI.

In the theoretical extreme, if someone trains an AI on the general public's data, and is able to create an AI that somehow replaces every job on earth, then congrats, we now live in a post-work society, we just need to reach out and take it rather than letting one person capitalize infinitely.

And at the end of the day, if you honestly believe the profits from AI are non-existent, then what are you worried about? All those companies putting all their eggs in the LLM basket are going to disappear overnight when the AI bubble finally pops, right?

Destroying it is both not an option, and an objectively regressive suggestion to even make.

Destruction isn't possible because even if you deleted every bit of information from every hard drive in the world, now that we know it's possible, someone would recreate it all in a matter of months.

Regressive because you're literally suggesting that we destroy a new technology because we're afraid of what it will do to the technology it replaces. Meanwhile, there's a very decent chance that AI is our best chance at solving the energy/climate crises through advancing nuclear tech, as well as surviving the next pandemic via ground breaking protein folding tech.

I realize AI tech makes people uncomfortable (for...so many reasons), but becoming old fashioned conservatives in response is not a solution.

I would take it a step further than public domain, though. I would also make any profits from illegally trained AI need to be licensed from the public. If you're going to use an AI to replace workers, then you need to pay taxes to the people proportional to what you would be paying those it replaces.

Guys what in the fuck are these questions?

He keeps praising McKinley for his tariffs that famously failed in all the same ways that Trump's are predicted to 🍿.

He knows exactly what he's doing. It's multiple groups of shitheads using each other to gain power, not just one big group of elites who are all trustworthy buddies.

My guess is that Musk will need to buy a merc army before he's able to establish his own nation in space. Might already have one.