121–130 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using unlicensed intellectual property to build a plagiarism machine that is wrong 10% of the time, could be interpreted as a scam by many folks.
Is there anyway to build intelligence that doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism you are using here? I remember when IP laws were looked at like a form of oppression in the tech community...
This is not true. Otherwise, why is open source licensing so popular? Have you simply never read those licenses?
"When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers." There's really nobody for normal people to root for in this battle. They're fighting over who gets to wield the dick that is going to screw us all.
I think Elon had the moral high ground in principle, but him waiting so long makes me think it was never about the moral high ground to begin with.
If Elon Musk remained the silly/goofy outsider character he was, then the narrative that he naively invested in OpenAI for the good of all mankind is somewhat believable.
However, he really turned himself a serious shitball in the past few years and did some really harmful things intentionally. Maybe his trying to test the boundaries or something? But it does made his "kindness" somewhat hard to believe.
Also, I can't see any outcome where the general labor (which most of us are) can benefit from AI development, given the context that the world is suffering from population decline and economic crisis, which could reduce overall opportunity and at the same time make living harder.
After all, AI is different than other tech in that, the end gold for AI is to eliminate all "frictions".
What is frictions? Well, say if you want to go to a place, the getting up and leave, the driving, the parking, the walking, that's all friction. In a frictionless world, you want to go to a place, and you already there, it's done right as you finishes your wishing.
Here's the thing: as general labors, most services we provide is also to reduce friction, we exchange that for money to survive. That's how we got a share of the wealth of the world. So if there's less friction, then will translate to less opportunity, in that scene, "we all lost" too.
BTW: in my (Chinese) education, we were told that when productivity is advanced enough, communism will become the final and only choice of humanity. The silly communists never realized that if productivity is really that advanced, then there's a chance that the life of most people could become some redundant waste to be eliminated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using unlicensed intellectual property to build a plagiarism machine that is wrong 10% of the time, could be interpreted as a scam by many folks.
> wrong 10% of the time that doesn't sound nearly as bad as you think it does; I don't see how ethics are relevant here either, unless oil is also somehow a scam regardless, one must be delusional to deny the fact that it's useful tech "but they're evil" is not an argument
Is this denial in the room with us now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I get more and better work done with AI, to my own satisfaction and to the benefit of my employer In the short run, because Anthropic and other providers are heavily subsidizing coding agents to maximize user base. Will your employer still benefit and be satisfied in a couple of years when Anthropic jacks up the price by 5x and dumbs down Opus to the point where 50% of changes are easier to do manually than via an…
why would anthropic do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if you're equating same rights to soulless corporations and humans as well as their motives.
I'd say both are equally soulless, dualism is a little bit of a philosophical dead end. Frankly, I don't particularly care much for the moral panic around capitalism. Capitalism has it's downsides for sure, but it's the system our society has chosen to motivate people, and it seems to work okay for many things. Does it matter if the AI model that solves your diagnosis, creates a life saving drug or solves an Erdös pr…
China and EU are somewhat doing the right thing though. Not at the scope yet.
Sam didn't "win" the case in the sense that most people will think of when reading this headline. In the 20th paragraph of the linked article, finally getting to the actual reason: > On Monday, the jury took only two hours to reach its verdict. Musk’s complaint, the panel found, had indeed exceeded the statute of limitations Musk is appealing. This fight is far from over.
or it is pretty much over before it even began, because he sued way too late...
I'm not so sure. The danger with AI was that one bunch of capitalists got control, monopolised it / used trade secrets to control it, then it gets smarter than humans and said capitalists basically control the world and replace much human labour to grab all the money.
Musk partly started OpenAI to guard against Google being in that situation and it has sort of worked in that it's led to a bunch of different companies all competing. The main ones being Google, OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI, those all being kind of OpenAI spin offs except for Google.
The case illustrates the leaders can be arseholes so it's best to have competition to keep them under control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say both are equally soulless, dualism is a little bit of a philosophical dead end. Frankly, I don't particularly care much for the moral panic around capitalism. Capitalism has it's downsides for sure, but it's the system our society has chosen to motivate people, and it seems to work okay for many things. Does it matter if the AI model that solves your diagnosis, creates a life saving drug or solves an Erdös pr…
I don't think anyone's disputing advantage and progress AI brings. What's at odds are corporate leeches bringing it on by leeching of everyone's work and giving back nothing for it except for a subscription service. That's where the soulless comes from, not teligious context. China and EU are somewhat doing the right thing though. Not at the scope yet.
My point about "moral panic" is that it leads to statements like "giving back nothing"... which are objectively untrue. They might not reward every person that contributed to the tokens they are training on, but doing so is extremely practically difficult, and hard to do fairly, and is also probably a waste of limited resources in terms of net human progress. All these companies are doing is exactly what society has set up as the capitalist methodology to get work done: gather investors, pay people, sell products, etc... As opposed for example to the communist party deciding that the state should fund your project, or to fight for a research grant, or some other methodology, which might or might not work as well.
The only curious part about capitalism is that some individuals get a disproportionate amount of the reward for work done. At a societal level, this is essentially a soft power redistribution system, but often also leads to obnoxious individuals with supercar collections. Whether this is an overall good or bad thing for human progress is really, really hard to say for sure. However, it has a tendency to promote a lizardbrain response evolved to promote resource sharing in tribal societies, which was the best overall strategy in that setting. Or in other words, it makes people jealous.