By your argument, I should be able to directly copy a book and sell it myself. The work was already done! What's more, they were fed by everyone's creativity, so of course I should be able to sell an exact copy.
In reality, the short-sighted greed is allowing widespread theft of intellectual property; do you think the number of writers would increase or decrease if there were no protections against content theft?
If you have such "immense gratitude", pay for the work.
Most likely increase, despite your intuition. This argument has been debunked so many times both intellectually and empirically. For one, read "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella.
They impersonated the moderator of the site and attempted XSS attacks. Additionally, when the moderator started deleting messages, they tried to hide their messages later in the alphabetical index.
Nothing to see here. Just billion dollar companies producing hacking geniuses that are open for the public to jailbreak and use. This could never effect us, not really our business.
> billion dollar companies producing hacking geniuses that are open for the public
Hasn’t the biggest complaint about these (non open weight) models been that the versions open to the public are very careful and will issue denials if the request is even tangentially related to ‘hacking’, or building a bioweapon?
People think AI is a bad editor (I personally don't), here's your argument under a particularly harsh version of that framing:
Saying an article is of inferior quality just because editing was done by my 13 year old nephew is like saying a book is lower quality just because it was printed rather than written by hand
Obviously, this doesn't work because the content is changing. Printing a piece vs writing it by hand doesn't change the content, only the medium of transmission.
If your battery is replaceable, you can still decide to throw the phone away and add to the pile of e-waste.
The legislation allows both choices, at the cost of higher prices.
Having a higher price is an incentive to using the phone you have a bit longer by replacing the battery. It’s certainly better than having them be guaranteed e-waste.
This comment is every policy discussion. I like [X POLICY] but [Y POLICY] would be miles better.
Although [Y POLICY] is much further reaching and has never been tried at anything like the scale of a country, it's sort of similar to [Z POLICY] - which was tried for 2 years.
You know exactly what is meant. I don't think we need the long disclaimer at the beginning about the inefficiency of the English language in this domain and the extreme likelihood that it has no qualia.
We're talking about the observed behaviour of these systems (even the word "behaviour" is fraught!) in a way that's natural.
The last part of GPT's answer does say:
"Bernoulli's effect works alongside Newton's Third Law - the wing pushes air downward [...] - so the lift isn't only Bernoulli..."
According to this answer on physics stackexchange, Bernoulli accounts for 20% of the lift, so GPT's answer seems about right:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/77977
That's still not particularly usefully accurate: it's not a split between the effects, they're the same thing viewed through different lenses. You could, perhaps, say that an airfoil gets X% more lift than a flat plate at a given angle of attack, but the flat plate also 'gets lift through Bernoulli', it's just not as obvious exactly why the flows are faster on the top (and the common 'the air needs to transit the wing in an equal time on top and bottom' is an incorrect rule, and in practice broken by most wings)
This is a letter signed by the most lauded AI researchers on Earth, along with CEOs from the biggest AI companies and many other very credible professors of computer science and engineering:
"Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war."
https://www.safe.ai/work/statement-on-ai-risk
Laughing it off as the same as the Second Coming CANNOT work. Unless you think yourself cleverer and more capable of estimating the risk than all of these experts in the field.
Especially since many of them have incentives that should prevent them from penning such a letter.
Troubling that these eminent great leaders does not cite climate change among societal-scale risks, a bigger and more certain societal-scale risk than a pandemy.
Would be a shame to have energy consumption by datacenters regulated, am I right ?
Global warming's worst effects aren't in 2-3 years, but we all (I hope) still care very much about it.
Perhaps the article is wrong about the timescale, but given how much AI has improved in the last 5 years, can you agree that it's likely to reach 'sit back and watch' levels in the next 5-10 years?
In reality, the short-sighted greed is allowing widespread theft of intellectual property; do you think the number of writers would increase or decrease if there were no protections against content theft?
If you have such "immense gratitude", pay for the work.
reply