361–370 of 734 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a widely accepted definition of AGI that it is something that is either really smart (or generates more than 100B usd in revenue). It is also clear Sam Altman and OpenAI’s core values remain intact.
Lol, I'm sure Sam Altman's ideals haven't changed but you're a fool if you think OpenAI is aiming for anything loftier than a huge pile of money for investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He claims to be advancing progress. He believes that progress comes from technology plus good governance. Yet our government is descending into authoritarianism and AI is fueling rising data center energy demands exacerbating the climate crisis. And that is to say nothing of the role that AI is playing in building more effective tools for population control and mass surveillance. All these things are happening becaus…
[flagged]
“I don’t think Sam is the guy who should have the finger on the button for AGI.” - Ilya Sutskever, Co-founder, co-lead of Superalignment Team , Departed early 2024 - May 15, 2025, The Atlantic Anyway, I concur it's a hard choice as one other comment mentions.
I want Sam to win more than I do Zuck, just based on the proven negativity generated by Meta. I don't want that individual or that company anywhere near additional capital, power, capability or influence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want Sam to win more than I do Zuck, just based on the proven negativity generated by Meta. I don't want that individual or that company anywhere near additional capital, power, capability or influence.
Between the trio of Thiel, Zuck and sama I’d pick the fourth option - I don’t want to be on that train anymore
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He claims to be advancing progress. He believes that progress comes from technology plus good governance. Yet our government is descending into authoritarianism and AI is fueling rising data center energy demands exacerbating the climate crisis. And that is to say nothing of the role that AI is playing in building more effective tools for population control and mass surveillance. All these things are happening becaus…
[flagged]
That seems like a wild claim to make without any supporting evidence. Even Switzerland can be used to disprove it, so I'm not sure where you're coming from that assuredly.
The UK isn't totalitarian in the same sense that even Singapore is, let alone actually totalitarian states like Eritrea, North Korea, China, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another funny possibly sad coincidence is that the licenses that made open source what it is will probably be absolutely useless going forward, because as recent precedent has shown, companies can train on what they have legally gained access to. On the other hand, AGPL continues to be the future of F/OSS.
Yup. The book torrenting case is pretty nuts. If I can reproduce the entirety of most books off the top of my head and sell that to people as a service, it's a copyright violation. If AI does it, it's fair use. Pants-on-head idiotic judge.
Assuming you're referring to Bartz v. Anthropic, that is explicitly not what the ruling said, in fact it's almost the inverse. The judge said that output from an AI model which is a straight up reproduction of copyrighted material would likely be an explicit violation of copyright. This is on page 12/32 of the judgement[1].
But the vast majority of output from an LLM like Claude is not a word for word reproduction; it's a transformative use of the original work. In fact, the authors bringing the suit didn't even claim that it had reproduced their work. From page 7, "Authors do not allege that any infringing copy of their works was or would ever be provided to users by the Claude service." That's because Anthropic is already explicitly filtering out results that might contain copyrighted material. (I've run into this myself while trying to translate foreign language song lyrics to English. Claude will simply refuse to do this)[2]
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/231/bartz-v-an...
[2] https://claude.ai/share/d0586248-8d00-4d50-8e45-f9c5ef09ec81
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US, for one. You can sue nearly anyone for nearly anything, even something you obviously won't win in court, as long as you find a lawyer willing to do it; you don't need any actual legal standing to waste the target's time and money. Even the most unscrupulous lawyer is going to look at the MIT license, realize the target can defend it for a trivial amount of money (a single form letter from their lawyer) and mo…
You can sue for damages if they have malware in the code, there is no license that protects you from distributing harmful products even if you do it for free.
Sam Altman went from "I'm doing this because I love it" to proposing to receive 7% equity in the for-profit entity in a matter of months. Now he calls out researchers leaving for greener pastures as mercenaries while the echo of "OpenAI is nothing without its people" hasn't faded.