did you read the part where nonethewiser said "And even if they were [neutral] that doesn't mean the US shouldn't
sanction them for supporting terrorism."?
the double-negative might be confusing, so we can reword it to: "And even if they were neutral, the US should sanction them for supporting terrorism"
>I want to click to place the cursor in my 10 line prompt wherever I want. I want to double click to mark words. I want to use a scroll bar. I want to copy paste properly and not "23 lines pasted"
sounds like your terminal emulator is just crap, terminal and iterm on mac just work
>Some cookbook from 20 years ago probably is worthless to most people. But then there'll be one person who spends an afternoon hunting it down, bookstore to bookstore, because their aunt used to have a copy and they want to check a recipe, or some such.
ask your aunt for the recipe, look it up online with a search engine, ask an LLM by describing how it tastes and the ingredients you remember, this is really not that complicated
>This is cultural violence on a massive scale.
could you be any more dramatic? you're acting like we are actually losing anything when in reality we're gaining from this, you'll just be able to ask the AI for the recipe instead of wasting hours and hours hunting down some old book and ordering it online for an exorbitant amount
Just like with most things, LLM's are terrible at recipes if you are actually a good cook.
Your example is very flawed because if the LLM gave you the exact recipe then it would be infringement, but many recipes need to be exact. LLMs aggregate information so wanting a very specific recipe (to the point of hunting down an old cookbook) is a non-starter because it the LLM is really only guessing.
I agree with you on your point, but I just wanted to let you know that recipes can't be copyrighted.
If you write: "Smash one egg into that bowl and feel the power. Sprinkle salt onto it salt bae style." That's copyrighted and I can't copy that word for word.
But I can publish my own recipe which is an exact copy of yours but written like so:
Ingredients:
1 egg
1 teaspoon salt
Method:
Combine egg and salt.
Or write that in any way I want that isn't a word for word copy of your recipe.
What are we gaining other than your silly little hypothetical?
The whole problem here is:
- Not everyone agrees on the utility / value of AI.
- A small handful of companies control frontier models and get to shape how these inputs are ultimately put to use.
- As Sam Altman put it, they want to charge you, in perpetuity, for "intelligence" as a service. Contrarily, anyone can access a book usually for a one time purchase fee and read it forever. You'll be paying per token to look up auntie's recipe every time instead of just, you know, reading the book.
Not to mention you are erasing the voices of human beings who had lives and may have related their experiences and emotions in those texts. That anyone would be comfortable with a corporation they know nothing about destroying potentially unique information of the lives and stories of real human beings, locking it away forever as one granular component of a stochastic content generator, the human expression in its actual form never to be accessed again, is absolutely appalling to me.
I think you should reflect more on who will really benefit, who has the control, and why humanity as a collective is potentially losing as collateral, without having much say about it.
Never really like this because it feels some arbitrary as to what counts as making a claim. Human language is filled with implications, and those implications are filled with implied claims. Yet burden or proof seems mostly used when someone makes one of those implied claims explicit, say by explicitly rejecting one.
"We should do X."
"X is not possible."
There was an implied claim that X is possible and an explicit claim that X is not possible, but often it feels that in such a scenario, it is the second individual who is deemed having a burden of proof.
This is made all the worse that there is rarely a single implied claim, but more a group of related implied claims that are also weighted. Like some combination of "data centers don't destroy the environment" and "or maybe they do, but only in amounts of destruction that are tolerable compared to human behaviors and worth the outputs gained" and even "they modify the environment, but it doesn't count as destruction, just change". And even worse (yet again), different readers of the conversation will find themselves placing different weights on these different interpretations making it near impossible to agree on what the original claim is. Thus the first person who makes an explicit claim gets all the attention which ignores all the messy implied human communications preceding it.
Dumping hot water into rivers harms ecosystems regardless of whether anyone happens to do it right now, and asking for a citation for that is such a WTF in and of itself we really shouldn't gloss over it.
I mean, "hot water" is a bit vague. What kind of temperature differentials are a problem? 0.01 degrees C 50 meters down stream I'm guessing isn't. 100 degrees C I'm assuming is super bad. What is the effect size? How much do we have to dump into a river must depend on the flow rate of the river, the dumping, the temperature of the river and the temperature of the dumped water, etc, etc.
And nothing at all is too stupid of a question to want an answer to. That way leads to people screaming at each other over social media instead of engaging with facts.
Can confirm : I'm reading this from France, we're in the 8th day of the meanest heatwave the country has known since records exist, and it's expected to last two more.
Do you also demand a citation when someone says dogs have four legs instead of realizing you know nothing about the subject at hand and quietly looking it up yourself, and then maybe asking more questions?
reply