It is totally legal to train on this stuff, but illegal to reproduce copyrighted works. Interestingly, Google's business model could have been criticized the same way. They construct a big index of copyrighted works, reproduce them, and monetize it.
With all due respect, Chomsky has no intuition for this kind of technology. Was sad to see him reject the technology, felt oddly like sour grapes when really LLMs have validated his work on universal grammar.
Right now, Altman may be the most relevant for the further development of AI because the way the technology continues to go to market will be largely shaped by the regulatory environments that exist globally, and Sam leading OAI is in by far thr best position to influence guide that policy. And he has been doing a good job with it.
Something I don’t read enough about that would make autonomous cars a lot more reliable is smart tech in the road infra. Why don’t stop lights send a beacon? Roads and lanes should send a signal. Cars should send signals to each other about their intent eg. turning indicators should not be purely visual, etc. Are there standards for this stuff being worked on?
We shrug them off because they are the devil we know: a super well understood risk. Also because safety is improving, so the trend is toward less risk not more.
I watched that documentary and had a good laugh at how poorly made it was. The filmmaker starts out by revealing that he just loves the ocean and wanted to make a film about it but didn’t know what the topic should be. The arc of the film is him googling for things, gaining the most basic perspective on an issue, pivoting his film toward it, and then failing to get any good interviews or original footage. So funny. He goes through ocean plastics, dolphins, shark fins, fishing net pollution, and one or two more with about as much depth as you would get from a tweet. Also why would you name your film Seaspiracy when Conspirasea is right there. 10/10 if taken as a mocumentary.
The issues are real and I appreciate raising awareness but wow. Not good work.
AI is best defined as whatever computers can’t quite do yet but we think they can do soon. It’s a moving target. Lots of things used to be “AI” that are commonplace now.
Because the mobile application is a much better, richer and faster experience for daily active users. For a casual user who is following a link from a google search, perhaps the web version is better. Reddit would like to convert users from the latter group to the former, because stickiness on their platform is what drives revenue. It's not a public service that owes you free information at ease, it's a business.
You don’t have to account for all the trigger words in existence. All you have to do is believe that the people who are raising issues about specific topics are doing so from a place of need. By characterizing them as “over-sensitive”, you are indicating that you cannot or do not believe in the cause, or cannot empathize with their lived experience.
If that’s the root for you, then just say it - “I'm not values aligned with this cause”. That’s totally valid.
Software is political. It’s written by people, it’s used by people, and it has an impact on society. It is impossible for it to be neutral.
I didn’t mention the police, I’m talking about anything that offends minority groups within your community of users. By choosing to be insensitive you contribute to their plight.