I'll give you that one. I'd missed that in the article. That just seems like bad taste on Apple's part.
But still, the overall idea seems like it does more good than harm to the end user. I really don't think it is making anybody change their mind about what they ultimately type and communicate.
Bringing charges is at the discretion of the prosecutor, and the CEOs of these companies are dining with the president. Learn a little bit about how power works.
It's TBD if the major LLM manufacturers quietly agitate for and get the same sort of retroactive-immunity deal nearly all of the telephone companies got with the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
With all the hype and fearmongering going on, it's not at all a sure thing that they won't.
I expect it will work in every foreign jurisdiction where the US can run roughshod over the government, spread enough FUD about reprisals should any "inconvenient" investigations be initiated, and/or promise generous foreign aid should the local government keep their police and prosecutors in line.
I mean -hell- look at what the US got New Zealand to do to Kim Dotcom... and remember that the thing he was being charged with not a crime in the country! The dollar amounts involved there are pocket change compared to what we're talking about now... so one expects the US government to be far more motivated than they were then.
The difference between math and all the other professions AI has been obsoleting is that math is actually not a useful pursuit. The tired old line about math someday discovering something that will be useful in an entirely unrelated field is mostly baloney, and the problems that mathematicians spend their years broadly have no real world applications at all. A modern day mathematician is much closer to a monk than a productive worker.
The people that deserve the jobs are Americans. It doesnt matter if a foreigner is more skilled--the American people don't want to complete for jobs in a global labor market.
Sorry I was using scientific in a broader sense - probably should have used "academic" instead -
it's deeply problematic because they are building on open, public results yet they don't provide information on how people may build on it - its exploitative and exclusionary - at least they are consistent
I find this argument to be extremely ridiculous. They solved some math problems and published the results for free. No one asked them to do it, they weren't paid, and they don't owe anyone anything. Who exactly is exploited and excluded? The entire notion of open public information is that you can do anything you want with it, including build private systems. Is a baker "exploitative and exclusionary" for reading a recipe in a book and then turning around and selling that bread to customers, without sharing the recipe with the customers?
The anti-AI arguments keep morphing, as many could have probably predicted. Starting with "AI can't do anything" to "AI can't do anything useful" to ... "AI breakthroughs are proprietary!#@!!!".
I've seen more goalposts move in the last 3 years than maybe in my whole (lengthy) career up to that point.
reply