Flat-earthers: The earth is flat. Round-earthers: The earth is round. "Reality lies in the middle" argument: The earth is oblong, not a perfect sphere, so both sides were right.
If we're gonna be pendantic about fallacies, you're using argument by analogy and it's not in any way comparable to the claims GP made about OpenAI.
It's not an argument by analogy. It's a reductio ad absurdum on the generalization that reality always lies in the middle but not always at the exact middle.
We are heading to an apocalyptic level of psychosis where human beings won't even believe the things they see with their own eyes are real anymore because of being flooded with AI slop 24/7/365.
We desperately need a technological solution to be able to somehow "sign" images and videos as being real and not generated or manipulated by AI. I have no idea how such a thing would work.
We desperately need a high-tech solution to disengage from the torrent of AI slop. I have found a form of photosynthesizing plant that grows in the soil of many places where humans live. Apparently, touching this with the palm of your hand creates a kind of protective endorphin effect that coalesces conflicting versions of reality into the one you're actually experiencing. It'll take a lot of money to advertise this to the general population, but I'm fundraising as hard as I can: this approach will be called "Touch Grass" and I hope to see you all when we do it together.
We are heading to an apocalyptic level of psychosis where human beings won't even believe the things they see with their own eyes are real anymore because of being flooded with AI slop 24/7/365.
We desperately need a technological solution to be able to somehow "sign" images and videos as being real and not generated or manipulated by AI. I have no idea how such a thing would work.
Enter “analog deep-fakers” who create misleading images using the lost arts of our ancestors. I guess it would at least be more expensive than AI, so might not be as prevalent and damaging.
Google was by far the best product. Maybe an LLM provider will emerge in that way, but it seems they are all very similar in capability right now.
I don't believe google won the search engine wars because they had the best product, while it may be true, the won because the of the tools they provided to their users. Email, cloud storage, docs/sheets/drive, Chrome, etc
They had already won the search engine wars well before any of those additional products existed.
How about positive mindshare? Regular people not growing up absolutely hating nvidia's guts and only begrudgingly buying their products. Also ensuring that a pretty big industry won't die from becoming too expensive. Plus, diversification is good for when the bubble inevitably bursts. But that's long-term thinking and we can't have that. People give Huang credit for having had a long-term vision on AI, but it feels l…
The consumer gaming card market is minuscule in comparison to their primary market now, to the point where worrying about diversifying there probably doesn’t make sense. Nor does it really matter whether consumer gamers hate them. That is likely to have zero effect on their core customer now.
CUDA is where it is today because some years ago, people in grad school screwed around with CUDA on their personal gaming PCs
This will just create a black market for AI generated video content that doesn't have a signature. Which I'm sure that China, Russia, hell even the US governments would not have a problem with because that would be extremely useful for them.
So everything without a signature should just be assumed to be AI.
Honestly - not gonna be feasible to sign things that are not AI-generated. For example, my friend's phone uses generative AI for the insane zoom capability it has - so every photo my friend takes would not be able to be signed.
And this is the crux of the issue - we are beelining to a world where EVERYTHING gets an AI filter in front of it. In a few years there will be no authentic content at all.
If they're too-important-to-fail they're too important not to be broken up or nationalised.
I’m curious if those of you calling for nationalization have worked for the government or a state-owned enterprise like Amtrak. People should witness the effects of long-term public sector ownership on productivity and effectiveness in a workplace.
Sure, but I have witnessed the cost of having to bail out organisations that realised we'd do so and so lost any sense of moral hazard.
If they're too-important-to-fail they're too important not to be broken up or nationalised.
Fwiw, this is a facile argument. You make no attenpt to demonstrate that after major reorganization (breakup / nationalization) that the firm will continue to have the desirable attributes (innovation, efficincy, ability to build) that made them too important to fail.
Why should I have to pay for their failure but not be rewarded when they profit.
Essentially as a taxpayer I'm being forced to take all the downside risk without any gain.