I wanted to make myself a tool to automatically generate the best version of my resume depending on the job I'm applying for, so that I would always pass AI screening. What a waste of time that would've been when you can simply send commands to GPT directly in the resume!
I love how we went from questioning copyright & licensing to "GPT vs Google, which one is better". To every artist or engineer out there who contributed to the general knowledge: you lost, everything you've ever done to help other people is now part of the models and there's nothing you can do to take it back. What even happened to the copyright strikes artists were supposed to bring up against these AI companies? That seems like 100 years ago :)
There's currently like 10 lawsuits against generative AI companies that are working through the courts including the one from Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz, one from Getty Images, one from the Author's Guild, and one from the New York Times. It should be shocking to nobody that lawsuits take time to litigate, and until the court settles the questions at hand, Open AI and its ilk are operating in a legal gray area.
> and until the court settles the questions at hand, Open AI and its ilk are operating in a legal gray area.
My understanding of western law is that things are ok unless law forbids it. So they are operating in an area that under _current_ laws is ok but because of what may be at stake many wish the current laws were different and are willing to use litigation and lobby efforts to that end.
This is NOT IN REPLY TO YOU but a general observation: Imagine the litigation that will happen when brain implants enable brain to brain sharing sensations and thoughts. Imagine the horrible copyright abuse! How will the publishing industry and sports industry and Hollywood control the rampart piracy?!?
Why are we imagining a hypothetical situation in the context of talking about things that are currently happening? It's an interesting thought experiment but it's kind of irrelevant because brain implants are nowhere near that level and as far as I know, freedom of thought is already part of western law. I am not a lawyer though, I just think we can think about the actual damages to real people rather than make shit up.
I put the "NOT IN REPLY TO YOU" since I meant that as a thought experiment of a possible future that where a similar situation may arise. Notice it is not freedom of thought that is in question. What is in question is freedom to share your sensations with others. You are watching a live football game and you share the sensations (what you see / hear / smell) with friends and family who are not there, etc. add to this technology that enables perfect memory of you sensations and instantly sharing them. In that possible future many will litigate and complain that their copyright and broadcast rights are being violated and they must be compensated much like what is happening with generative AI today. Sure this is scifi today. So were "flying machines" and "moon visits" and magic of our global communication pocket devices, etc. Gpt4o is a bunch of matrix math being done on high purity ore and refined sand powered by the sun / wind / splitting atoms / ... A century back few would believe it. Even a decade back, any predictions about a real AI like gpt4o working in just a decade, would you believe such predictions?
Your legacy can continue as part of the AI trained on your output.
What would you prefer? Would you want people to remember your name? Your face? Your voice? Which people? How often should they have to remember you? For how many thousands of years?
In this specific case I asked ChatGPT, which said "Walter Bright is the creator of the D programming language. He's a talented programmer!", so maybe he specifically won't be forgotten. Most of the rest of us probably will, though.
I have no idea if I am talented or not. I do know that I've spend a lot of time programming, and it's inevitable one would get better at it over time. I also learned from being around people who were really good, and were kind enough to help me.
I think your answer belies an an assumption that is important in this context.
You are assuming that who came up with knowledge is important. I think Walter was saying that he would rather the knowledge not be forgotten, not that he was the one who provided it.
> I love how we went from questioning copyright & licensing to "GPT vs Google, which one is better".
Have we? Certainly the people litigating haven't. And as this article notes, actors' newest contract does have protections against AI. SAG-AFTRA's press release states [0] they are pursuing legislation. That could be bluster or could go nowhere, but certainly people haven't given up.
Given the fact that many, many people make their software MIT licensed (or rather, do whatever, I don't care license), I think most of us will be ok with that :)
I think that's a naive take. Derivative works are nothing new. What's new is that the price of this work is much lower with a tradeoff in quality. Even human copycats are still better than generative AI by miles.
The artist is not defined by their past work or other miscellaneous artifacts, but their perspective and creativity. This too is not a revelation. AI has nothing to do with this. It's just a means to an end.
The real problem is the legal stuff. Everything else is hype.
Wikipedia knowledge is basically "democracy" knowledge, i.e. the more people decided to support an idea, the "truer" it gets. That's not knowledge at all!
When was it that you last verified something by yourself, with an experiment?
You didn't test the things you know. You know things because you could see they were the consensus, and so you had no reason to challenge them.
If an idea is disputed, then you trust it less. If it comes from a small number of reputable sources, then you trust it more than a large numbers of unreliable people. So with the Wiki.
Human knowledge isn't from the platonic realm. Human knowledge isn't checked by a theorem prover. You get almost all of your knowledge from other people, and you have no choice but to trust them for almost all of it.
That's what almost all human assumption and belief system is, also ideology and religion, but knowledge is indeed something different, and not of a type that should rely on democratic consensus. It instead needs to be held up by material evidence that's always subject to retesting no matter how unpopular a new idea is. This is obvious.
The rest of what you say could just as easily be applied to the foolish social dogmas of nearly any past age in human history, dogmas that so often turned out to be wrong. A small number of reputable sources (for their time) upheld doctrines such as geocentrism, religious extremism, hatred for certain racial groups and numerous fervent beliefs in the right of certain people to dominate others. These are just a few examples.
A more material one would be the certainty among reputable sources that plate tectonics were nonsense, until of course they were shown not to be by what started as an argument by only a few people who were deemed very unreliable.
None of this is to give weight to every crackpot idea put forth, or claim that all opinions are equally valid until stated otherwise, but what makes the difference is evidence, not consensus.
If I'm interpreting your comment correctly, I don't think your presentation of the role of popular consensus on Wikipedia is accurate. Read this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus.
Wikipedia doesn't establish consensus by pure numbers or voting, although it is a contributing factor. In disputes, it has moderated discussions with verdicts given by elevated users, including admins. Things like statistics and even (perhaps especially) precedent all weigh in. Popularity of a side can be weighted, but ruling purely based on popularity is actively discouraged.
This can lead to scenarios where 90% of users want something, but the moderater rules along with the 10%. Often, this happens when the discussion was initially among a bunch of relatively new users who aren't aware of some policy, and a more experienced editor points that a dispute is clearly not in line with some policy. This happens very regularly and is often a source of drama with long discussions.
This process actually arguably works better on popular and contentious pages; you get eyes and discussions of substance on those. Most boring pages are virtually ghost towns and are counterintuitively more susceptable to popularity-based consensus. Whatever you put up will likely stick, so it's just a matter of how many people and who will protect the page for the longest.
The second page addresses your concern about not giving too much weight to fringe theories. It's not enforced as well as it could be in many places though; it can be hard to judge what's due or undue weight.
It’s worse than that. Much knowledge comes from authorities or peers. The sources could be unpopular or barely reviewed. Yet, people are likely to believe specific types of sources. It seems to be hardwired for some purpose.
Now imagine you were able to go and edit the sign that says it is ethanol free to add the details of your test and dispute the claim, that would improve the knowledge.
Or rather, have a reputable source write an article about your work. If you write the news article about your own work and they publish it, the article is still a primary source (despite not being self-published)!
We trust the consensus of published, peer-reviewed experts. That's different than the kind of Demos that does things like declare war on Persia, kill Jesus and Socrates, or edit Wikipedia.
> If an idea is disputed, then you trust it less. If it comes from a small number of reputable sources, then you trust it more than a large numbers of unreliable people. So with the Wiki.
Right. That makes Wiki kind of unreliable. Not completely. And not to the point of uselessness, but you should trust it about as far as you can throw it.
>We trust the consensus of published, peer-reviewed experts. That's different than the kind of Demos that does things like declare war on Persia, kill Jesus and Socrates, or edit Wikipedia.
Ye of little faith! The Demos, after much bickering, have also decided to largely trust the consensus of published, peer-reviewed experts.
But what you really have to ask when you say you trust the consensus, is who forms the consensus of peer-reviewed experts?
It's rare to get an explicit consensus from an actual organization. When Cochrane does a large meta-analysis, and whisper "moderate evidence", I stop reading and immediately trust them with my life. Unfortunately, they very rarely have confidence in anything.
Most of the time, the consensus of published, peer-reviewed expert is also not something people form on their own. When has your neighbor last read and synthesized the literature to determine what the consensus is on hydroxyapatite in toothpaste, before going to the store?
Individual experts, I also trust only as far as I can throw them. The consensus of experts I'm happy to rely on. But that, very often, also comes from trusting the Demos, I'm afraid.
We humans also trust the consensus of non-peer reviewed truth all the time. Tell that group of children that the opposite sex doesn't have cooties, and there's a good chance they'll laugh at you. Look at any online community, and it's the same. We humans are great at it and do it all the time.
I thought knowledge, at least the best type comes from primary sources and from repeatable experiments with explicit premises as much as possible. This makes it sound like all knowledge is hearsay. If it is, what is the point of a place like Wikipedia or even an encyclopedia?
Indeed, the best type of knowledge comes from primary sources and original research. But those also produce an awful lot of not-knowledge.
Wikipedia's approach to sifting the knowledge from the not-knowledge is to prefer reliable secondary sources, i.e. sources deemed capable of telling the difference, mainly because they have a reputation for good editorial control. It's far from an ideal touchstone; but relying on "experts" is worse, because who's an expert? You need experts to identify experts, which is circular.
"Reliable secondary sources" doesn't amount to hearsay.
Read up on Wikipedia's "reliable source" policies.
Information on Wikipedia is meant to be backed up by a verifiable source, partly to prevent a situation where knowledge only makes it onto Wikipedia if enough of the editors agree that it should be true.
I know about that, but it's basically the same thing since reliable sources in the wikipedia terms are a set of sources that we collectively decide to trust. What's interesting about wikipedia sources is that it won't allow you to directly quote a person even though they are a well known trustworthy information source. Instead you must back up your statements through a 3rd party (usually media-related) entity. This is both good and bad, considering that journalists may not be the best at evaluating certain information, especially in the science or politics field.
>it won't allow you to directly quote a person even though they are a well known trustworthy information source
Little known fact: That is actually allowed in some limited situations, but only reluctantly, and with a lot of care.
For instance if someone is recognized as an established researcher in their field with publications in top academic journals and then they make a statement on their website about something they have expertise in, you can actually cite that if you have no better source! Even though it's a direct self-published quote.
lol, I find wikipedia to be a bit all over the place or lack structure. It also is largely a giant block of text, though I do think the new LHS menu has improved things
Man, I can't wait for there to be 7 variants of RPi 6 all with some nondescript name and none of which actually offer exactly what I need, because they had to flood and segment the market.
They should stay private and build on the quality brand they have rather than trying to grow because reasons.
> I can't wait for there to be 7 variants of RPi 6 all with some nondescript name and none of which actually offer exactly what I need
So you think with fewer variants, one of those few is more likely to meet your needs? Doesn't having more variants make it more likely that one will suit you, or at least get closer?
This is the paradox of choice. If there is 1 option, a person gets it and it's not perfect, but it's fine. They know what they're getting and make it work. If there are a bunch of variants there is a greater expectation that one of them will perfectly fit the need, and they are always left wondering if a different one would have been better, and are thus left feeling unsatisfied.
Some choice is good. Too much choice is problematic.
If they can't keep up with demand people will go elsewhere. Focusing on brand and perception instead of fulfilling demand is not a fundamentally good strategy.
This is what market theory says, but there are a lot of competing products at attractive price points and it hasn’t happened yet. The lack of community, software, and examples makes the competitors less attractive. The same thing happened with Arduino. There were a lot of competitors that offered more capable silicon, but the community and software libraries were the real appeal.
In 3D printing in (say) 2019, for instance: It was ridiculously common to use a Raspberry Pi with a printer -- for all kinds of reasons. They were cheap (enough), and they worked well (enough), and they were available (enough).
Few, if any, questioned whether the Raspberry Pi was the right thing to use, for it was ubiquitous and well-understood.
But when Pis became more expensive and/or less available in 2021 or so, people didn't just stop doing stuff with their printers.
They instead found alternative platforms to do things with: They bought used corpo mini-PCs, repurposed cheap-shit Android TV boxes, used old Android phones, and (of course) trudged through the weeds getting things working various other SBCs.
Not just market theory, but practice and common sense. People buy what there is. Companies can ride some brand recognition for a bit (I personally waited for them to get new components available) but it won't last, and any customers new to the idea won't wait. They'll pick of the available options.
I genuinely don't understand what this has to do with what I said. I understand this decision upsets you for some reason, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Because this is always what happens when there are investors involved. They want to maximize the return of their investment over the short to midterm with a complete disregard for the long term brand damage.
Yes, I'm looking forwards to being able to choose from the Pi 6 Power, the Pi 6 Pure, the Pi 6 Play, and the Pi 6 5G, each product being actually a completely different product with completely different branding depending on which continent you're shopping in, and with the process being reshuffled annually.
Have their production issues been a function of money? I assumed it was components (pandemic related) and maybe manufacturing capacity (because they manufacture locally instead of China, for instance)
If it's a problem to be solved with money, it's likely they could do so with higher prices or loans. Even if they raise money through stock, it will end up with higher prices to make returns for investors. Public companies have higher regulatory overhead and will be at the will of the investors to make more money.
Another way to keep up with demand is to jack up prices until the demand meets the supply. That's what I fear. They have the brandname recognition to pull it off.
This is some I, Robot level stuff. That being said, I still fail to see the real world application of this thing, at least at a scalable affordable cost.
Haha, what's that gonna do? Ever heard of soft delete? It's a thing where even if you delete something off a website, the database still retains that information even though it becomes inaccessible by the public.
Everything we write on the web is like that, including this very comment.
even if it were a hard delete, do these people think OpenAI is scraping the live version of the site?
the answers have already been exported. all you're doing by deleting it is ensuring it's only available on ChatGPT, and no longer available to web users who aren't using AI tools that ingested the content before it was deleted.
For everyone else who doesn't understand what this means, he's saying Apple wants you to be able to run models on their devices, just like you've been doing on nvidia cards for a while.
I think he's saying they want to make local AI a first class, default, capability, which is very unlike buying a $1k peripheral to enable it. At this point (though everyone seems to be working on it), other companies need to include a gaming GPU in every laptop, and tablet now (lol), to enable this.
Well, the main point of any company is to make money. That money is influenced by their labor costs, so if an AI startup can help them reduce that cost by using a bot then you can bet they'll buy it.
The point is that you're not selling AI, you're selling a solution to a problem—in the case of your example, reduced costs. If you approach it as "I want to start an AI startup" you've already lost.
