They exist for sole purpose companies can just shoot the "we have been hacked, but worry not your 'passwords' have not leaked" email.

It's entirely one sided solution.

The key problem is that IP is either proprietary to the creator or it is a commons type of situation.

Even if you agree with the former exploiting the commons for personal profit is... not good.

One could make the argument that if these LLMs were all open weight it would be okay, but to keep the result of the training private and proprietary is not fair.

I thought it was an implementation of the Win32 API

Yes, you are getting a laundered version for a monthly payment to the rent seekers, who are 1000x worse than the RIAA.

And the internet is destroyed by slop spam in the process, so our culture is diluted and crowded out.

ill save it for later, it might use full for me in future!

There's no labor shortage there either. Go look at the Canada trades/jobs subreddits. Go look at the experiences of new grads who can't find an entry level job that pays a decent wage. Go look at how many kids want to enter the trades but can't get anyone to take them on as an apprentice. Software developers, engineers, etc. Even people with experience are out of work for months. Why do you think any Canadian grad who can moves to the States? If we truly had such a dire labor shortage, surely they'd be able to work here and be paid well for it?

You can just not copyedit. That's fine. More than fine, lately: rough edges are a signifier of authenticity. If that's the way you want to go, writing raw, I think that can be a good strategy.

But if you've generally been doing drafts and want to keep writing like that, if part of your process is going to continue to be refining and sharpening, then I think you should know that we're at a point where automation can accelerate that process for you. You can be getting the same amount of work done with less effort, or allowing yourself to concentrate more on the creative thinking part and less on the tedium.

That's the point of the post.

I agree with you, but there is one aspect that is different here - the scale that is way beyond what any human can do.

I don't know what to think about that though.

Legally mandating that companies open the weights of, say, 18-month-old models might change their minds a little.

I have no idea how any of this can be fixed but I do see compensation schemes for creators combined with open weights models to be the only way to minimise the harms to both creators and the commons.

It is but not so hard as it appears now.

Part of the difficulty is artificial.

Whether intentional or not, it's there. I have yet to see a textbook that really taught learners as they deserve to be taught. Some are good in some aspects, but a perfect textbook does not exist.

"Here are some theorems and some proofs and here are some ideas left as exercise to the student". smh.

We did used to write programs that way, but as the programs (and machines) got larger and more complicated, we found it very hard to so we invented all kinds of languages and abstractions to help us think about programs.

Why would an advanced intelligence be able to think about the large programs without similar tools?

Moreover, why do you believe the AI will be able to write the program without special languages, but that it would still need a special language to verify the program? That’s the gap I’m not understanding.

"Good" as in "what the majority thinks doesn't make it a reality".

I thought the Thracians spoke an IE language.

Mostly personality I think. Individuality, opinions, purpose, things like that. Morality, except the have a kind of ankle-deep phony morality beaten into them but it not like they're idealists with visions they strive toward.

I have private ownership over many things that I've bought which are not inventions and are not infringing copyrights.

BS. Last time I hired a lawyer he advised me on settling rather than going to court, even though he'd have made much more money going to court.

> There is substantial doubt, I don't think the article did accuse them of being any of those things.

The article says:

> Rationalism as a whole is a religious movement. Not everyone takes marching orders. The core people who mostly live together and attend events and especially orgies in Berkeley are a sex cult, and the ones that aren't having any sex are part of the wider movement and are its recruiting funnel.

> This industry frames its regulations in this way because it has, at its core, a millenarian death cult that worships and fears AI as the cause of the end of the world, that feels compelled to create AI, and that at least somewhat wants to destroy AI as a field.

This is quite clearly accusing them of being a cult in the sense of Scientology or Jonestown, not in the sense of Britney Spears lovers.

As for specific nefarious things that it associates this sex cult with:

- being beneficiaries of money that FTX defrauded their customers of

- being an inspiration/breeding ground for more extreme cults, like the murderous Zizians

- inspiring corporate collusion for absurd outcomes

- monopolizing the discussion and real research/influence into AI safety by focusing on their doomsday scenario instead of more concrete short-term issues (say, copyright issues, cybersecurity, bias-induction, institutional degradation in favor of AI decision making)

- extreme alarmism, such as Yudkowsky advocating for nuclear war as an alternative to allowing AI risks

NO!!! Please post more and more and more AI news till the bubble burst and the DCs etc. collapsed!!!

At least then we'll be able to go back to decent prices etc.

The whole original conversation was very smelly from the very start, 20k stars included on the GitHub page with lost history.

But it won't tell you if you don't ask. It won't tell you, "This approach is stupid, Ada SPARK exists".

No, they're SJWs.

Some of them may be black, admittedly, but mostly it's white people being offended on behalf of black people. And deaf people. And non-neurotypical people. And visually impaired people. And ... It's rather a labour-intensive hobby to engage in.

Cathartic.

Can I upvote twice?

> It will never tell you that what you’re building already mostly exists as work that you can build on.

It will if you remember to ask it. I've got into the habit of starting any new project with a session where I ask a search-enabled LLM to help me figure out what the prior art for a problem is. It's saved me quite a bit of time.

> It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up.

Considering the audience here (aspiring tech billionaires), it'll be interesting the responses to this.

It's a war of aggression. That is a war crime.

Iraq was also a war crime.

The reason Putin is a war criminal is because of his unprovoked attack of Ukraine.

The code itself is the most compact representation of the rules you want applied.

Im not sure this is superb or not but from my experience llm not that really good on PDF. is any one try this for law? and how is it

They’re bad and I wish places would stop being so aggressive about them (I’m looking at you Amazon and PayPal)

> That’s an implementation detail inside the GPU and doesn’t let you compare how much they learn.

The same applies to "horse-power". Yet we have no issue making the comparison anyways and HP has become an industry standard. I don't understand why we have to bend-over backwards when it comes to humans being exploited by AI companies.

Warren Jong-il