FaceDeer

Sure, not disputing that. I’m more annoyed by the double standard regarding his successful decisions.

No, just surprised about how uninformed and knee-jerk those opinions are.

In my experience, it’s likely that some of those downvotes come from reflexive “AI bad! How dare you say AI good!” Reactions, not anything specific to mental health. For a community called “technology” there’s a pretty strong anti-AI bubble going on here.

What I mean is that when Musk-owned companies have successes people are very often quick to accuse him of “just hiring smart people” or “just buying a successful company.” It’s only when those companies have failures that he gets credit for being hands-on in their design decisions.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Elon Musk is a pretty terrible person both in terms of his personality and his politics. But pretty terrible people can nevertheless be smart and make good engineering decisions. Just look at von Braun as a prime example.

Always interesting to see the view of the degree of Elon Musk’s involvement in his companies’ decisions swing depending on whether the outcome is good or bad.

They are using them, however. They’re visiting websites with them, using apps with them, and so forth.

If they don’t then someone else will.

Meanwhile, publishers: “why is everyone using AI instead of viewing our sites themselves?”

Interestingly, I’m not seeing your quoted content when I look at this article. I see a three-paragraph-long article that says in a nutshell “people don’t visit source sites as much now that AI summarizes the contents for them.” (Ironic that I am manually summarizing it like that).

Perhaps it’s some kind of paywall blocking me from seeing the rest? I don’t see any popup telling me that, but I’ve got a lot of adblockers that might be stopping that from appearing. I’m not going to disable adblockers just to see whether this is paywalled, given how incredibly intrusive and annoying ads are these days.

Gee, I wonder why people prefer AI.

Any reason to say that other than that it didn’t give the result you wanted?

The enemy is at the same time too strong and too weak.

That’s a work of fiction. You might as well suggest dropping lightsabres on the bunker.

What material would that be? Corrosives have limits, they can’t just keep dissolving stuff forever.

And what would “total failure” look like? It’s a mountain, it’s not going to just collapse into goo.

And I read that the US used more than half of its stock of these bunker-buster bombs in this attack, the largest conventional bunker-busters in existence. So they can’t simply try again.

And no bomb is irresistible.

It made the ruling stronger, not weaker. The judge was accepting the most extreme claims that the Authors were making and still finding no copyright violation from training. Pushing back those claims won’t help their case, it’s already as strong as it’s ever going to get.

As far as the judge was concerned, it didn’t matter whether the AI did or did not “memorize” its training data. He said it didn’t violate copyright either way.

I don’t see what distinction you’re trying to draw here. It previously had trouble generating full glasses of wine, they made some changes, now it can. As a result, AIs are capable of generating an image of a full wine glass.

This is just another goalpost that’s been blown past, like the “AI will never be able to draw hands correctly” thing that was so popular back in the day. Now AIs are quite good at drawing hands, and so new “but they can’t do X!” Standards have been invented. I see no fundamental reason why any of those standards won’t ultimately be surpassed.

The judge writes that the Authors told him that LLMs memorized the content and could recite it. He then said “for purposes of argument I’ll assume that’s true,” and even despite that he went ahead and ruled that LLM training does not violate copyright.

It was perhaps a bit daring of Anthropic not to contest what the Authors claimed in that case, but as it turns out the result is an even stronger ruling. The judge gave the Authors every benefit of the doubt and still found that they had no case when it came to training.

That’s not what this ruling was about. That part is going to an actual trial.

For the purposes of this ruling it doesn’t actually matter. The Authors claimed that this was the case and the judge said “sure, for purposes of argument I’ll assume that this is indeed the case.” It didn’t change the outcome.