> If someone generates an image with a signature on it and doesn't share it, what harm does that do?
It is not "someone" who is generating this image with a signature, it is a product of a company that has ingested the entirety of all human work without paying anything towards all the people who created that work that is creating this image. Of course it is now an issue of this same company that they are using watermarks and signatures of people who created works this product is being trained on.
Companies are not people. And you can't go and ingest all text that has ever been created (and digitized) without paying anything without now facing some scrutiny over how you are rearranging that body of data and selling it back us.
We are being sold the idea that this product is going to replace everything, AGI is here, ASI on the horizon, but it can't understand that when you generate an image it cannot take the signature/watermark from the training data? And it is now the fault of the user who prompted the image creation (not the watermark creation)? Bullshit.
I mean, not really, since the UK was trying to renegotiate an existing deal (which they profited from for decades) towards a deal that would favor the UK more than the EU and would trigger an entire blow-back of other member-states wanting to renegotiate on their EU responsibilities without losing the advantages that this deal brought, whereas the deal with Canada is a new deal where the EU gains better trading and less dependence on the US and Canada gains better trading and more security if their next door neighbor falls apart even further.
The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something.
Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election. Sure, the relationship between EU and UK had strained over the years, but trying to pin this on the inflexibility of the EU feels a bit misdirected.
Huh? In your example these many teachers were paid for teaching these students and were able to make a living off of teaching without the students compensating or attributing their financial (or career) outcomes to the teachers while now we have a system where we are expected to pay a monthly amount to a corporation that has inhaled all human knowledge without any financial compensation to the people who created, managed or maintained this knowledge. The effective difference being that our knowledge, which used to be a means of income, has now become a subscription cost.
But doesn't the fact that WE have to feed the existing chats back into it and WE have to do further RL prove that your point is moot? Consciousness does not wait to be prompted. Consciousness does not need anything fed back into it because it is already there because they experienced the actual interaction. A conscious mind does not have an on/off switch where it waits for another being to flip the switch in order for it to learn or experience. These systems are static without human intervention. They are in that sense still a lot more like a computer and a lot less like a living organism that exists.
This comment is being down-voted because this post isn't talking in favor the Iranian regime, it is talking about the atrocities that the people of Iran are having to live through, how their own government is self destructing and willing to take everyone with them, so a post about whom the regime has supported feels like it's missing the mark.
No one in this thread is thinking "This makes me like the Iranian regime" or "this is in favor of the Iranian regime". And so ofcourse your pro-Israel comments are even more besides the point, especially because this article is about the suffering of the Iranian people and you're take is "HN is anti-Israel whilst believing it is pro-Israel". HN isn't a single person, it's a lot of people with differing opinions and sometimes you'll have a pro-X sentiment and another time it might go the other way.
Also labeling 'pedophilia' as a 'conspiratorial trope' kind of defeats your entire comment, but maybe that's just me.
Ofcourse we're gonna compare being against the use of technology for Mass surveillance/Autonomous weapons with being racist, like wtf kind of argument is this? So because businesses can't implement racist policies they shouldn't be allowed to have any policies concerning the use of their tech? Mindblowing.
Journalism isn't valued by how many opinions have changed, it is there to report on stories that are or have happened. You ask for consequences in your comment but how can there be consequences if there are no reports? Absolutely baffling take.
Something I think people forget when it comes to the valuation of bitcoin is just how much of it is used to fund illegal activities (Betting, Drugs, anything on the darkweb,...). I honestly believe much of the valuation is linked to that, but I have no source or proof.
If all companies fire 50% of their engineers, how will anybody find similar new jobs? In an ideal world software productivity doubling WOULD be a huge boon for the economy IF companies used the increased productivity of their engineers as a way to manage tech debt, R&D and other issues that were put in the backlog because historically there were no resources for this. In reality all companies look at increased productivity as a source for layoffs which does not translate in higher output but the same output done by less people. Which is a net negative because now you have 50% of all engineers without a job and no discernible increase in quality of deliverables.
They had a control group who also went on a reduced calorie deficit but without oats and found that the oats eating group had a much higher decrease of cholesterol, it's in the article.
I don't understand why it always has to be one or the other? Why can't we have both? More sources of energy means more reliable energy distribution, multiple fail-safes, in summer there is more solar, in fall there is more wind, in winter we probably need power plants to uphold the need for energy so everyone can stay warm. But this polarization of things, just like with politics, is so stupid. They all have pro's and con's. We should be investing in all of them, maintaining as much different sources of energy as possible and reassess the situation over time. Or am I missing something in your comment?
Bitcoin and other crypto coins have a practical use. You can use them to buy whatever is being sold on the darkweb with the main product categories being drugs and guns. I honestly believe much of the valuation of Crypto is tied to these marketplaces.
I wanna push back on this a little, sure, openAI has a certain level of detail in it's dataset because of the fact that you actually have conversations with it in order to use their product, but we're talking about a short window of time since the inception of ChatGPT. Google has all your searches (if you use google.com) and all of your browsing history (if you use a chromium based browser) and all of your emails (if you use gmail.com) and they have been adding to this dataset for a lot longer. Personally I stopped using google.com and I have tried my hardest to avoid Chromium-based web-browsers in the last 5-10 years but they still have a hefty dataset of all of my actions before that or when I'm on a (work) computer that forces me to use their systems. Because of this I'm not entirely sure OpenAI knows my intent better than Google, purely based on amount of data processed.
> So why is the assumption that AI will magically delete all jobs while discounting the fact that it will create careers we haven’t even thought of?
I think that in a vacuum you could reasonably believe that this might be the case but I feel like it isn't just about the technology these days, it's about the hunger c-suites and tech companies have for replacing workforce with ai and/or automation. It's quite clear that layoffs and mass adoption of AI/automation raises shareholder value so there is no incentive to create new jobs.
Will there be an organic shift away from Tech/IT/Computers into new fields? It might, but I think it's a bit naive to think that this will be proportionate to the careers AI will make redundant when there is such a big focus on eliminating as much jobs as possible in lieu of AI.
What? They don't check your credit score where I live (west-eu). They check your pay slip to see how much you make monthly and if it your rent is less than half your paycheck they can decide to let you rent. After that is a two or three month downpayment that is locked in a seperate bank account specifically for this use and is released at the end of the lease. If there is no damage to the rental unit you get back your full amount, depending on what damage is found, the downpayment is used to fix that.
This is such a weird argument. People were dumping on google because they had already been working on LLM's and machine learning products for quite a few years before Chatgpt released their first public model, and with how much capital and talent google has it was justified criticism how they now also fell behind this piece of new technology. This was before we knew the extent of hallucinations and were still under the impression that they would soon be solved. Now we can clearly see that hallucinations are a problem, especially when you're summarizing information on top of a search query, which yes, they should at least be careful about when releasing, so things like this issue don't happen.
Could you expand on your comment that life has entropy moving from high to low? Doesn't aging increase the entropy in our biological system? I have always thought that we are at our most structured in the early phases of conception with entropy increasing constantly as we age.
It says in the article that people who lose their drivers license on account of speeding usually keep on driving anyway. I also feel like this is already the case in a lot of countries yet speeding still exists so I don't know if I agree that this is this simple solution no one is thinking of.
I get your point, but also, so what? The point of this whistle-blowing is that the public gets to make informed decisions about these companies that provide us with services that much of us use daily, and that the government gets a chance to figure out whether this is the truth or not and take actions accordingly. It's not about who is guilty right now but what needs to be done to prevent this in the future, IMO.
And whatever she might be guilty of doing, the chances of her ever having the same access to sensitive information in any company has gone drastically down after coming forward with this information.
Huh, so you're claiming that GDP data and such is not correct? Any source on that? Because I see multiple sources reporting that in 2023 the GDP of Russia was $2,009,959M and that of Italy was $2,300,941M, although Italy has a higher debt %. Which would confirm the original posters claim considering Italy is a much, much smaller country than Russia. What I find a common trope is people claiming facts are incorrect without stating proof.
I like this take.
To add to that, it feels that for a company to maintain their software effectively, there needs to be a certain level of cross-departement knowledge, people who can connect the dots between frontend and backend for example, because usually it is in these transitions between two layers that bugs start to form. I feel like this becomes increasingly more difficult in large, complex company's where every departement is self-contained and there is not much vertical movement amongst colleagues, only horizontal. Which makes it really hard to solve issues that are not solely linked to one part of the process. So success doesn't only breed complacency, it decreases the possibility to do cross-departmental work because all the departments become to big to effectively facilitate this.
We all know negative content drives more engagement, see: Facebook. But I've also noticed this trend and for me it makes sense seeing as most of the content on the internet nowadays is negative content. Social media is used to belittle and criticize other people/ideas, the news has never been positive, we've passed the stage where content creators that are positive about products are seen as trustworthy, because an overly positive attitude has been linked to a "shill" mindset. We've seen the evolution of big tech from trying to destabilise old/existing industries and giving us a new, improved service to trying to squeeze as much profit out of their users as possible. Other big companies have dominated their competition and have used that power to boost prices, limit access to media, decrease the user experience,... In a lot of ways I feel like the toxicity that we are experiencing online these days is a direct result of noticing all these negative patterns and realising that most of what is being advertised to us has a large chance of being too good to be true. Games that look good pre-release but then get released full of bugs, software that was once a good deal becomes a subscription, series that get cancelled too soon, products that look good on release but have issues not long after without a chance to repair them, companies completely changing their objectives after a CEO change, the list goes on. So instead of trying to be positive and finding ways to get excited about something it is now a "safer" bet to be critical and negative about anything that is being announced because of the cycles of dissapointment we've all been through. At least to me, this makes sense, eventhough I would like to see it be different.
It's hard to pick any singular company that started to make tech suck because it's a result of the economical structure in which these companies are trying to exist. The neverending search for more profit, more growth every quarter has made it impossible for companies to adopt a strategy that is not focussed on consumer exploitation, at least in the long run.
AFAIK the protest surrounding the tesla factory were more related to the horrendous work culture that is present at tesla and the amount of pollution that has reportedly been found dumped by tesla factories. 'Because reasons' seem to imply that allowing a tesla plant to be constructed in your country is a resounding net-positive for that country but I think Germany was correct in assessing that the "tesla mindset" isn't completely in line with (West-)European ideals.