I'm reasonably sure that all of the authors are long dead. (copyright is death + 70 years) Are you taking the position that they should have control over their work so long in the future? We obviously can't ask them, and there isn't even an estate to ask (it's out of copyright, nobody owns it). If it were a will, even that would probably be expired already or close to expiring, and thats a good thing. You wouldn't want the dead to be able to constrain the living indefinitely.
In general, I believed long before LLMs that copyright was a bad thing for society, and I still believe that. Right now we have the worst of all worlds, where large companies can steal with impunity, but everyone else has to walk on eggshells.
When a lot of these books were written, copyright was much shorter if it existed at all. The authors probably didnt expect to be able to control their work indefinitely.
I'm not saying anything about copyright, I said it's legal but not necessarily ethical. Copyright deals with legality. I don't consider Generative AI to be ethical unless all training data is acquired with informed consent, which the original authors of these victorian works did not give
I understand you're talking about ethics. I'm talking about how we conceive of ethics as relates to artistic works which I see as tied to time and law.
Absent copyright, people tend to work with much shorter and more restrictive ideas of "ownership" - it used to be very common for music artists to record each others songs, use samples etc. Similar in painting, and other art forms. It wasnt theft, thats just how you did stuff. Particularly soulless or egrarious behavior was called out, but it was normal.
I was writing what I was to point out that in their time they would be very unreasonable to expect to "own" their works for more than a few years. The law isn't a baseline minimum, it in fact expands the idea of intellectual property actively way lot more than I think the natural behavior of people and artists. I dont think any of them would have had many thoughts at all about what happened a hundred or more years after their death other than they hoped they were remembered at all
The article's main idea is that for an AI, sycophancy or adversarial (contrarian) are the two available modes only. It's because they don't have enough context to make defensible decisions. You need to include a bunch of fuzzy stuff around the situation, far more than it strictly "needs" to help it stick to its guns and actually make decisions confidently
I think this is interesting as an idea. I do find that when I give really detailed context about my team, other teams, ours and their okrs, goals, things I know people like or are passionate about, it gives better answers and is more confident. but its also often wrong, or overindexes on these things I have written. In practise, its very difficult to get enough of this on paper without a: holding a frankly worrying level of sensitive information (is it a good idea to write down what I really think of various people's weaknesses and strengths?) and b: spending hours each day merely establishing ongoing context of what I heard at lunch or who's off sick today or whatever, plus I know that research shows longer context can degrade performance, so in theory you want to somehow cut it down to only that which truly matters for the task at hand and and and... goodness gracious its all very time consuming and im not sure its worth the squeeze
whats the other end of some of these? you showed which categories tend to have 0-1 viewers, what categories have the least? what categories have lowest average age of accounts with 10+ viewers etc. What should you do to stand out?
Look for the Tucker Carlson interview with Joe Kent.
(Tucker Carlson is weirdly intelligent and thoughtful in that interview in a way i did not expect, but Joe said the most eye opening stuff... I have a lot of respect for him)
There is this interesting split on the right on Israel, Tucker Carlson is one of the few large platforms talking on zionism. He also interviewed the US embassador to Israel Mike Huckabee who said they have a "biblical right to land from ‘wadi of Egypt to the great river’" (Greater Israel), he also reported on how Israeli is seeing Turkey as the next threat to eliminate after Iran.
The left, not liberals but actual antiwar/antizionist left has been warning about Zionism and the Iran war for decades, nothing Tucker is saying is new, it's just nobody ever listens to those voices they have no platform are completely ignored in liberal media which is exclusively Zionist and pro-war. So when Tucker talks about it it's the first time most people ever hear this stuff, that's what makes Tucker so dangerous he is a white supremacists with a large platform who reads the room and recognizes the historic unpopularity of Israel, who has built a viable independent media platform for himself. Tucker is what an intelligent fascist Trump 2.0 would look like make no mistake.
> he also reported on how Israeli is seeing Turkey as the next threat to eliminate after Iran.
Good thing that that's not at all true. What you are referring to was an (intentional) mistranslation of a public comment by an Israeli minister, who said that Turkey was their greatest threat after Iran.
He says constantly that he is against blood guilt, the killing of innocents no matter their heritage, and even went so far as to say that he doesn't even necessarily think the large scale replacement of white people in their home countries is a bad thing. I don't know how you could consider that to be white supremacy.
Yeah, I mean, if you ignore maybe half of the things he says about Black Americans or immigrants, you could maybe not see him as a white supremacist. Tucker Carlson is a good political communicator, and he is clever. But he's still a bad person.
But that doesn't make him a supremacist. Tucker knows his audience and gives them what they want. He's done content in support of both major parties in the US; he's a true capitalist not a supremacist.
He said immigrants make the country “poorer, and dirtier, and more divided.", he credited “white men” for “creating civilization.”, he was pro-iraq war he said he felt “no sympathy” for Iraqis, calling them “semiliterate primitive monkeys.”, he believes in the great replacement theory he said the Biden administration’s immigration policy is like “eugenics” against white people, he said black people killed by police that sparked the BLM protests deserved to have been killed, it's fucking endless like a week ago he called pro-hitler Oswald Mosley one of Britain's 'great war heroes'.
That's why the parent comment said "the large scale replacement of white people in their home countries" as a statement of fact, all you dog whistling nazi fucks
FWIW he has said many times he regrets his role in supporting the Iraq war, and says he has since change his views.
>Biden administration’s immigration
To quote Joe Biden: "An unrelenting stream of immigration, non-stop, non-stop. Folks like me who are of european caucasian descent for the first time in 2017 we'll be an absolute minority. Absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America will be white European stock. That's not a bad thing, that's the source of our strength."
Joe Biden's White House sued Texas and Arizona to get them to take down their border walls, and even sent the Border Patrol with fork lifts to forcibly open the barbed wire:
>"the large scale replacement of white people in their home countries" as a statement of fact
In one generation (1965 to now):
USA: 90% (higher than that in most states) -> 50%
UK: 100% -> 83% (predicted to be a minority by 2066)
Australia: 98% -> 55%
New Zealand: 90% -> 67%
Germany: 100% -> 80%
Spain: 98% -> 81%
France: 100% -> 85% (difficult to estimate but likely lower than 85%)
Netherlands: 100% -> 72%
Italy: 100% -> 92%
Denmark: 100% -> 82%
Belgium: 100% -> 64%
Sweden: 100% -> 75%
Norway: 100% -> 90%
This is just one generation, extrapolating these trends out another one or two generations and the result is that whites are a minority in most of their homelands.
>nazi fucks
I mean if you're saying that I want to invade Poland, quite the opposite is true. I'm saying we should leave Poland alone so they can manage their own borders and grow peacefully. :)
Holy shit that's not the point, other people will call you and Tucker white supremacists BECAUSE of the things you believe, do you not see how explaining those things (like the white replacement theory) isn't helpful? Like we already knew you think that, that's why you are a white supremacist in the first place, only other white supremacists will agree with you that's what makes somebody a white supremacist, it's believing those things.
Of course you don't like that, because that vile ideology is thankfully still generally reviled in society so you don't want to be called that. But that's not up to you. It's the same way that obviously the Nazis didn't think they were the bad guys, they thought they were the good guys saving Germany from non-whites and jews destroying their homeland, just like you think white people's homelands are being threatened by non-white people.
"I don't want to be a hated minority in my own country" is not supremacy.
China, Japan, Korea, India are nice places and I have no problem with them controlling their own borders. They are 99% ethnically homogeneous, but I don't think you would spend a second trying to claim they are "asian supremacists".
>do you not see how explaining those things (like the white replacement theory) isn't helpful?
Your original post seemed incredulous that I could claim it was happening at all, then I provided you numbers and now you've moved the goal post from "it isn't happening" to "why would you point out this thing that's obviously happening?".
Calling people Nazis doesn't work anymore, nobody cares. It's obvious your entire view on the topic is based on just trying to apply that label to everything you disagree with.
you can also make a lot of money buy selling things for more than you bought them for, and lose weight by simply eating less. You can feel better by sleeping more, and going to the gym every day. You can get ahead in your career by becoming great friends with your boss and your boss' boss.
It turns out that often it being easy to describe in broad strokes how to do something doesn't make it easy to do in practise.
Paying attention in class might be a legitimate issue requiring medication for some people, but otherwise it, and doing optional assignments, are a choice.
> Paying attention in class might be a legitimate issue requiring medication for some people
Considering I would be classified as a member of this group, let me ask:
> but otherwise it, and doing optional assignments, are a choice
If attention is a choice, then how reliably can you control your attention based your choice?
For the sake of analogy, is being able to control one's attention like controlling one's breathe? As in, one can consciously be aware of and control their breathing to some degree, but without a conscious choice, breathing will still operate in the background. Or is attention something like a voluntary muscle movement which requires explicit intention?
I am asking because I have/had little to no control over my ability to focus. Thus, I am curious what it is like for others.
ive also dreamt about it. Surely something like this can be made, even with traditional algorithmic methods rules like checking for "not x but y" etc patterns should be possible. Highlighted with different colors for the different colors, with an overall rating for the page. Another promising avenue is words overused by AIs compared to the general corpus (may even be possible to narrow down the model used on longer pages)
I had an australian colleague who found it endlessly funny that we pronounced "router" as "rooter" instead of their "rowter". statements like "If that happens the system will root the packets via the rooter first" was met with much giggling
What would it even mean for an ai to solve e-commerce? Is that a claim made here? Is e-commerce a problem to be solved? It seems like e-commerce does just fine, if plagued by poor quality product, fake reviews, and relentless borderline fraudulent marketing.
Was anyone suggesting AI would help with it? It seems from the article that Walmart (presumably experts in e-commerce) themselves willingly collaborated with open ai. Especially at Walmart's level, what even was the theory?
In any case. It seems that despite this poor result, Walmart decided to essentially go ahead anyway and partner with open ai to put their "own chatbot" inside the open ai app?
Well everyone is desperate to show that they’ve built and deployed some AI thing. Few have done so and demonstrated meaningful value that justifies all the expense of doing it.
They forgot the first thing. Why would a customer use it and does it help them buy more stuff so I make more money?
Just putting an AI in there for the heck of it is doomed to failure.
I can think of a few different ways AI could be used inside a shopping app especially at the size of a company like walmart. Such as 'hey try our picknick planner?', 'need some sort of DIY project? Ask our bot for help'. Guide the user on what they need for a project and hey look here we have that stuff in stock at your local store today.
The cart experience one of the last places I would put an AI. At that point the customer is 'done' and they want out.
I agree. It seems impossible that its referring to support staff in those numbers. I had heard of similar studies in the British Army in ww1, with similar results (training on man-shaped targets etc) - surely the army would be unlikely to change tack based on a study with such an obviously flawed conclusion.
Not to mention the fact that this was a time of much more serious discipline issues. People were executed for desertion, and despite that many people did. There was also much malingering, up to and including literally shooting oneself in the foot. Is it so hard to believe that some people just hid when battles came?
Id be very surprised to hear from the other person that by Vietnam they had gotten it up to 95% though. My impression was that the most effective move away from this sort of thing was the move to a professional volunteer army, no conscription.
A laughable concept; absurd on its face. Just like the idea that uber is just suburban mums taking one or two trips on the way back from school.
It will absolutely be a full time, below minimum wage job that desperate people do. The same as uber, delivery drivers, and the entire rest of the gig economy
In general, I believed long before LLMs that copyright was a bad thing for society, and I still believe that. Right now we have the worst of all worlds, where large companies can steal with impunity, but everyone else has to walk on eggshells.
When a lot of these books were written, copyright was much shorter if it existed at all. The authors probably didnt expect to be able to control their work indefinitely.
reply