There is an easy answer to this, but it’s not being pursued by AI companies because it’ll make them less money, albeit totally ethically.

Make all LLM models free to use, regardless of sophistication, and be collaborative with sharing the algorithms. They don’t have to be open to everyone, but they can look at requests and grant them on merit without charging for it.

So how do they make money? How goes Google search make money? Advertisements. If you have a good, free product, advertisement space will follow. If it’s impossible to make an AI product while also properly compensating people for training material, then don’t make it a sold product. Use copyright training material freely to offer a free product with no premiums.

Copyright is a lesser evil compared to taking human labor and creativity for free to sell a product.

They’re someone else’s turnips though, not yours. If you’re going to make money selling pictures of them, don’t you think the person who grew the turnips deserves a fair share of the proceeds?

Or from another perspective, if the person who grew them requests payment in return for you to take pictures of them, and you don’t want to pay it – why don’t you go find other turnips? Or grow your own?

These LLMs are an end product of capitalism – exploiting other people’s labor and creativity without paying them so you can get rich.

I can’t make money without using OpenAI’s paid products for free.

Checkmate motherfucker

Same :(

He should’ve resigned before anything else. His direction is what put the company into a shaky financial situation.

Man as a long term destiny player, this has just been heartbreaking. The latest expansion was absolutely amazing and you could tell the devs really put their heart and soul into it. And now a lot of them are gone. The narrative leads, longtime leaders of the franchise, all canned.

Rumors about what’s upcoming suggest a major downsizing in the content that’s going to come out for players too. So I’m not even sure how they plan on continuing to make money.

Fuck Parsons.

No matter how much you’d like for it to be the case, proprietary algorithms owned by big corporations are not remotely comparable to children.

Please tell me you meant racist and not raciest

It must drive him nuts that he’s actually incapable of doing all this. He can’t actually create anything. Certainly not shareholder value lmao

She’s a goddamn fucking gem, I love her. She has a bunch of great TikToks and is a super smart lawyer. She don’t miss

Or you market it as a Tesla’s self driving mode

Don’t stick your dick in that

It should end up self regulating once AI is using AI material. That’s the downfall of the companies not bothering to put very clear identification of AI produced material. It’ll spiral into a hilarious mess.

Oh I meant Hugging Face in particular.

Still, I appreciate you taking the time to lay out that explanation!

It goes without saying that we should work out any safety issues before that

A new space race with railguns would be the fucking coolest thing ever

Mind explaining to a tech layperson why they’re bad?

Uncountably many

Only an idiot would decide to mindlessly trawl Reddit to train an LLM. They’ll be confused when their model suddenly is confidently wrong about everything and have no clue.

Techbros try to address global warming instead of addressing the next big scam fad (impossible)

I don’t think the concept is bad. I take a medicine that may give me cognition problems when I’m very old, but it’s remarkably effective for me right now and provides a significant quality of life improvement. So, I’ve chosen to stay on it.

That’s different I think though from Neuralink as it is today. There need to be stringent safety measures in place and controls on testing. We’ve come a long way on neurology, but we still have a lot we don’t understand.

Well Musk already has one strike against him for retaining himself. Just need to find two flunky exec yesmen he’s keeping on and he would be fired by his own standard.

It’s a major unforced error by Musk – which to be fair happen to be the majority of his errors.

With the non compete clause void (which should have always been the case), Musk is just creating his own competition.

There’s one missing piece here, and it’s startup capital. You don’t usually see new chemicals manufacturers for instance, because you need a lot of money to buy everything to start with.

Let’s also not forget that execs are horrible at estimating work.

“Oh this’ll just be a copy paste job right?” No you idiot this is a completely different system and because of xyz we can’t just copy everything we did on a different project.

Yeah the 59% in this survey are going to end up pretty successful and buy out the 41%

Dark Souls is a great metaphor for depression. You go hollow when you give up. It’s by persevering and overcoming obstacles that we find not only joy but meaning.

When two giant assholes fight, we all win!

Yeah there’s that too. It really isn’t practical. At the very least you want some sort of tactile feedback so you have confirmation “yes I pressed the thing”

I used to think virtual automation and touchscreens were the coolest thing, until I started to do work designing an industrial process and considering safety. And ever since, I am completely in favor of physical switches and devices instead of virtual. So much more secure.

It’s important to see where the hydrogen is being sourced from. Grey Hydrogen comes from natural gas and is not ideal as you point out.

Green hydrogen is promising however, and comes from electrolyzers. The key there is where the electricity to operate them comes from, but that’s true for electric vehicles as well. It seems an unfair criticism against hydrogen vehicles to hold that against them when the same isn’t done for electric vehicles.

In any case, I think we do want to build out hydrogen infrastructure (and I’m biased since I work in hydrogen energy). The future we’re envisioning is one where solar and wind provide us excesses fairly often. That’s where it’s perfect to run electrolyzers to store the energy as hydrogen.

Very nice explanation of industry safety without getting too caught up in the details!

More miners join, more difficult and expensive it gets, to the point it forces the least efficient miners to be turned off, or seek cheaper electricity.

So wealth continues to be concentrated by the wealthy while polluting a bunch.

I remain convinced that crypto is just tech bros trying to redo the early days of the stock market so they end up rich instead

That’s favorable isn’t it? Starting and stopping at low speeds would drain power faster I think?

Hey now, that’s they’re prerogative – just like it’s my prerogative to never give them a cent of money again.

For one, we have no idea if it’s completely unrelated. We don’t know any of the context here just from the picture. This could very well be a summer job. We don’t know.

Also, nonce is a really weird insult. Are you meaning to call them an idiot, or a pedo? If the former, sure, but if the latter, that’s really weird.

Why pay any attention to manufactured outrage? If there’s actual events to be outraged about, then we should talk about them instead of fictions. If there’s only manufactured events, then it isn’t an issue in the first place.

This is different from hypotheticals too. A realistic hypothetical holds as much water as an actual event. If there’s a 1% chance of a catastrophic hypothetical, and it happens hundreds of times daily, that’s a big fucking deal.

To put it another way, if there’s something to be legitimately outraged about, why bother with creating fictitious scenarios?

To use your analogy, we don’t know if this chemo will actually cure them. It could make them just a little better, but it needs to be worth the suffering.

Our goal at the end of the day is to reach 0 emissions as soon as possible. If the increased coal and gas that Germany is using now because of eliminating nuclear energy results in zero emissions much quicker, I’ll happily agree with you. As it stands however, Germany has not proven out a reduction in carbon higher than their recent increases.

There is no climate justification for cutting out nuclear energy. If there was, we’d see a net detriment in France and a net positive in Germany with regards to the justification. If that exists today, I’d be more than happy to read about it. If you’re going to argue that it’ll exist tomorrow, you’ll need projections that are made on reasonable assumptions and that show the difference. Again, I’d be happy to look at those.