“This part of the brand new technology that we are still figuring out is impossible”, refuses to elaborate
Is it possible that part of the message in this article is some nations would like us to give up on creating truthful AI? Saying hallucinations are impossible to fix is a great initial mood to vilify any uncomfortable truths it provided.
https://sopuli.xyz/pictrs/image/2eaf9f8c-d422-4f19-b542-b4eb72c4f3ba.webp?format=webp
This is a side effect of too much doomscrolling.
Start of the article shows the genuine reaction is there: “Children giggle as young people flash their smartphones to film robots carrying plates of freshly prepared meals on their inbuilt trays to deliver to diners in a busy eatery in Kenya’s capital.”
I cant say I disagree though, this is putting pressure on some of the twisted dynamics we live by indeed but i think your question doesn’t really work, exploiting people isnt the point, generating value with no regard of other life is and robotics make good slaves. The real issue is how will humans survive in an economy where there labor can no longer be used to obtain a share of the earth-pie.
What we can do is be vocal about normalizing universal basic income which has proven to work. This way we can still be hyped about the technology. Its going to be a matter of either we do get there or we wont live to tell the difference.
Thank you for this. I consider myself technical and those words felt like a punch in the gut.
Well you could always just use the proper name. The cc license in question IS anti commercial. A great deal of ai is opens source and non commercial and to those cc is fair game. But if commercial is where you draw the line then envoking this license may do.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International)
Calling it “anti-ai” when its not removes power from your argument. Your invoking something that does not exit and linking to something seemingly unrelated.
Now the bigger question i have, have had since i have seen people do this.
Why is there still not an actual anti-ai license? Seems obvious that there is a need for it? I dont know much about how licenses are created but it strikes me as odd.
Well i understand its to combat ai from training on your comments right, maybe also to poison the data?
I just don’t see what taking a non relevant licensee and giving it a different name is doing to stop that. Trivial to filter stuff like this out in a dataset.
At best an individual data scraping company decides to honor it out of kindness. At worst people think that its a real license and copy it with a false sense of security.
Just FYI the license in your comment doesn’t actually exist and the creative commons license it links to does not mention AI anywhere.
I don’t like copyright laws, it feels like a very out of date and detrimental system in the online world….
That said, The licensing of outputs from a new model presumably carrying more weight while the same sites are littered with copyright trained models is absurdly ironic.
Either these should be equally protected or equally unprotected. I hope most people can agree on that.
I had no idea and i thought i was relatively up to date with new gen technology. I thought the foldable phones that came out where more an experimental proof of concept of the first instance of such technology but not that whole flexible panels where possible.
Even just the fact an oled display can be this thin is completely new to me.
Good luck with overpriced shipping :) but still for something i though was not yet possible its shockingly accessible.
Found them on amazon holy shit.
You’d think something like this would be major tech news, people have been talking about this tech for ages and a consensus for many is that it wasn’t impossible. (Look at all the crap foldable phones)
It’s objectively not cheap but it’s not expensive for such revolutionary tech.
Without additional information that seems more likely but its at least portrayed here as a real display.
It would still be a very interesting idea to rather make everything a display make everything a zero energy AR surface but then we need convenient mainstream AR wearables.
This channel has been uploaded vids of these screens for 8 months now. Is there some more tangible info on how these came about?
I don’t think you can diy this in a garage?
Ive seen people link that one multiple times and i am at a loss what its about.
The cc 4.0 license it points to does not mention AI at all.
CC even has a page where they state that it probably is legal to train on cc protected content but it depends on context.
https://creativecommons.org/2023/08/18/understanding-cc-licenses-and-generative-ai/
I think someone used ai to mean attribution/alike, international. Which are part of the full name (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International) but still make little sense as an acronym next to CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 being the official acronym.
“don’t enter any commands you see online without looking at it first. You can’t trust everyone”
This has somewhat become a staple idea of mine. People trust others online way too easily. Ai isn’t all that different in this but its more obvious to us that there is something to be scared about the uncanny valley.
What it tends to come down to is capacity for personal critical thinking which we should aim to foster more in future generations.
Maybe i assume too much that programmer-minded people naturally come with such skills for troubleshooting and will be capable of responsible ai interactions?
Some people aren’t gonna like me saying this. But when used responsibly chatgpt is the absolute linux mvp.
I stopped being a windows user a month after getting access to gpt4, its been amazing. I learned so much in general and it would not have been feasible for me without there-are-no-dumb-questions-ai
This reads like an ai response. The first part is reasonably accurate, much more then my own classes thats didnt differentiate at all.
The continued part is a gptchat tell I think someone continued with “write another section on weed and club drugs like x y”
Its another tell that this section 2 is alot more unhinged then the first.
It is biased , probably the prompted “for a school to discourage” but its far from the worst ive seen and heard
This briarproject in the other comment looks similar and open source.
Unintentional Strawman misses the point.
A economy is but a subsystem to serve an organized society.
Not every society requires a economy, there are many ways to organize, the original foundational ideas go back to ancient greece. Read up about them.
The people with wealth and power have all the insensitive to keep things as they are. They own the planets resources, the means of productions. They loby or laws.
To think were waiting on one person to have “a better idea” for things to change is incredibly naive.
I don’t know how the system will change how the next one will look but the current one is mathematically not sustainable for another century.
“Free” tm