I generally agree, but I kind of wonder whether something like an advanced LLM has a place as a component of an artificial “brain”. We have a language-focused area in our brain, but we have lots of other components of the brain that does all kinds of other things too. Perhaps we’re “just” missing those other things.
I think you’re conflating intelligence and consciousness. Pain and suffering requires consciousness but intelligence does not imply pain or suffering or happiness. LLMs are already “intelligent” to a certain degree in some aspects, though not generally intelligent like humans. But there is no reason to believe that you couldn’t have a generally intelligent artificial agent that lacks consciousness and thus can feel no pain or suffering.
That’s true, but that doesn’t contradict the above comment. Unless you believe in something like a spirit or soul, you must concede that human intelligence ultimately arises from physical matter (whatever your model of physics is). From what we know of science right now, there are no direct reasons for thinking that true intelligence or even consciousness is limited to biological organisms based on carbon and could not arise in silicon.
Last summer, Meta scored a key victory in this case, as the court concluded that using pirated books to train its Llama LLM qualified as fair use, based on the arguments presented in this case.
This is so fucked. It’s literally legal for an AI to read pirated books to learn, but humans are not allowed to do this. AIs have more rights than we do already.
purely legal conformation standpoint
It’s still stupid even if it’s required by law.
Never meet your heroes. Speaking from very literal experience regarding Stallman.
if you transfer resources to them
I get what you’re saying here and mostly agree, but just want to point out that you are transferring a resource - your labour. So it is a bit more nuanced than this.
I doubt they knowingly sponsored a project based on the developers’ political ideologies
But now they should know right? But the response makes it clear they don’t really care. They want to include everyone in the “big tent”, which clearly runs afoul of the paradox of tolerance. I am not a fan of their response.
The idea is that eventually they would stop scraping you cause the data is bad or huge. But it’s a long term thing, it doesn’t help in the moment.
A low power AI actually seems like a good way to generate a ton of believable - but bad - data that can be used to fight the bad AI’s.
Even “high power” AIs would produce bad data. It’s currently well known that feeding AI data to an AI model decreases model quality and if repeated, it just becomes worse and worse. So yea, this is definitely viable.
On a gaming PC, what arch distro would you use?
So what distro do you use? I definitely am also including gaming in the considerations.
Speaking of debian - anyone here running debian testing as a daily driver? I really enjoy debian as a kind of “default” Linux but the rare updates and the need to upgrade the whole system when a major update hits annoys me, so rolling release feels better, but I’m worried Debian Testing is unstable? But I’ve heard it’s not so bad? Anyone got any opinion on that?
Tbf a substantial amount of voters did see the comment - at the time of writing, 297 upvotes on the comment vs 483 upvotes on the post, or ~61%. So actually most people do dig through the comments, if the upvote count is something to go by at least.
Anyone who doesn’t read comments is unlikely to read reader added context, so you’re probably not getting a large amount of the remaining 39% of people to get the context just because you add some extra UI feature.
Besides, explaining the context is a much longer affair than a title and just wouldn’t fit. It’s not like I would even say that the title of this post is misleading in the first place, it’s actually pretty to-the-point.
There’s also a chance that people will get the wrong idea about posts without the context - i.e. that posts without reader added context are super truthful somehow. I feel that people should rather accept that all titles of a few sentences are missing context. That is after all the point of a title - to summarize and bring only the most important information, which inevitably leads to a loss of context.
It is implemented. It’s known as “comments”. You are looking at it. There’s no need for any particular UI feature for this stuff.
Unfortunately I don’t think you can just make it illegal. People/companies would still do it, just covertly. Then you end up in a situation where adverts are not marked as such and that’s probably even worse than the current situation, where ads at least identify themselves as ads.
That is, in theory. In practice, it can make a big difference. Source: Worked professionally with large services built in Python and Rust.
Depends on what communities and instances you frequent I would say. You can find nicely moderated places if you care to look for them.
Nice