I assume, when people dismiss it, they are not looking at it through the business lens and the 100m user signups KPI, but they are dismissing it on technical grounds, as an LLM is just a very big statistical database which seems incapable of solving problems beyond (impressive looking) text/image/video generation.
Makes sense. Although I think that's an error. TikTok is "just" a video sharing site. Joe Rogan is "just" a podcaster. Dumb things that affect lots of people are important.
None of this has to be for-profit. It just requires the university administration to put its wants, priorities, and head count (!) above the interests of the individual departments and of the students.
Making the whole thing a non-profit or a charity won’t solve this.
If people of the past would have followed that argument, we would not have seen the declaration of human rights of the French Revolution, not have had the civil war, slaves might still be slaves. Hitler’s successors would reign Europe.
Sometimes good people have to do what is necessary, even when it means to make things worse initially.
No, are we in such a moment now? I don’t know, but that’s the problem, right? You never know at the time.
When it come to Hitler people will generally approve of political assassinations and infanticide if it would have meant that Hitler were killed before world war 2. Any benefit that society would have gain if those methods would had been established as the norm would however be dwarfed from the negatives. Sometimes bad methods make things initially better, but long term has terrible consequences.
As a minor historical perspective. The French Revolution is know in Europe as one of the bloodiest period in France under the name of Reign of Terror, and ended with Napoleon who then initiated the Napoleonic Wars, which is also know as one of the biggest war in Europe.
> Sometimes good people have to do what is necessary, even when it means to make things worse initially.
> No, are we in such a moment now? I don’t know, but that’s the problem, right? You never know at the time.
The other problem is that literal Hitler thought the exact same thing, which is why Mein Kampf got written in a prison.
I wonder if the people four years ago chanting to hang Trump's VP (for accepting having lost the election) also thought they were in the right…
(Not that it matters either way if those people are "mistake theory" (power) rather than "conflict theory" (truth), because I expect all clothes to eventually be worn by various conflict theorists).
It‘s the worst ideas together, but the alternative is even worse? That does not make any sense, logically. But I guess this summarizes the current situation quite nicely.
> Nothing to stop them turning around the next day and changing their interpretation again.
Why describes mostly every law enacted by a parliament? They clearly have that power to change the laws they enacted at any time.
So where is the problem if parliament delegates this power to some executive entity?
Now, if delegation is not clearly defined, this is another issue I can understand. And I am not interested enough in the minutia of US legislation to have an opinion on that.
> Why describes mostly every law enacted by a parliament? They clearly have that power to change the laws they enacted at any time.
They don't have the power to reinterpret their laws. They can repeal laws and pass new laws, but interpretation is up to the courts, if they don't like the interpretation the court gives to a law then their recourse is to pass a new law.
> So where is the problem if parliament delegates this power to some executive entity?
The problem is firstly that the executive isn't supposed to have the power to make or repeal laws, "delegating" it to them breaks the separation of powers, and secondly allowing a law to be "reinterpreted" rather than rewritten breaks the whole system of precedence that the rule of law depends on.
reply