eaglelamp

There is no meaningful discourse because there is no meaningful decision at stake. The owning class has decided that “AI” will be shoved into any plausible orifice and the “discourse” online is just a reaction to a decision that has already been made.

Frankly the noise being made online about AI boils down to social posturing in nearly all cases. Even the author is striking a pose of a nuanced intellectual, but this pose, like the ones he opposes, will have no impact on events.

If we are going to have a general discussion about copyright reform at a national level, I'm all for it. If we are going to let billion dollar corporations break the law to make even more money and invent legal fictions after the fact to protect them, I'm completely against it.

Training a model is not equivalent to training a human. Freedom of information for a mountain of graphics cards in a privately owned data center is not the same as freedom of information for flesh and blood human beings.

Couldn't the same guarantees be achieved with immutability? Of course this would be setting aside concerns with performance/resource usage, but the parent is describing an environment where these concerns are not primary.

Personally I find it much easier to grok immutable data, not just understand when concentrating on it, then ownership rules.

ChatGPT gov launched in January. Musk is using DOGE to hoover up tons of government data and reportedly using 'AI' technology to analyze it. There seems to be a rush to insert 'AI' into government processes, and with the government, unlike the consumer market, being the first to market will build a significant moat.

Of course this will lead to conflict between Altman and Musk as they rush to entrench themselves within the current administration. This buyout offer could be an effective tactic to delay the pending funding from Softbank, and in turn the kick off of stargate, while DOGE gets up to speed. Even a short delay could be impactful in the early days of an aggressive and fickle administration.

I didn't mean it as rhetoric, it's a simplified statement of a viewpoint.

I think rhetorically "..who choose to do business with them" is doing a lot more work than anything I wrote. Once an organization reaches a certain size individuals start losing meaningful choice in how they interact with it. You can say that the "gestalt" will of the organization is more important, but you can't make other people concede that their point of view is merely a rhetorical stance.

It's not incredible it is just a different view point. In your second paragraph you take a utilitarian point of view in which case the size of an organization is irrelevant so long as it produces a net gain for society.

An alternative view values human freedom and autonomy. From this perspective the size of an organization is relevant - a large enough organization can impose its will on individuals who don't wish to associate with it.

Neither viewpoint is wrong, but acting as if the one you prefer is somehow more correct or objective is.

I see where you're coming from, but for the problem to be solvable at all we need to presuppose some base level of agreement about the world between you and your partner. To take your critique even further (I haven't seen the article, original sub was a twitter link) how do I know that my partner agrees with me on the set of primary colors?

Ultimately the problem is constructed to prompt a discussion so any reasonable "solution" would do, or if the stakes were life and death maybe the rational solution is to play forever as suggested by other commenters.

For the first scenario send the message: If two primary colors end and state the color that results from mixing, <primary color>.

If the other participant sends a primary color in the first round you can end immediately. Given that your partner understands primary colors and mixing you will be done after one round.

The benefit of this solution is that no matter what your partner sends over to you they have the instructions needed to know what you will do on your side, which addresses the coordination challenge.

I think this solution works for some of the other scenarios as well, but I didn't read them all.

The US didn't directly overthrow the government of South Vietnam, but the US did tell the South Vietnamese army that they would lose funding and support if they didn't overthrow Diem in 1963. Given that the army of South Vietnam was basically an appendage of the American military at that point it was a threat the South Vietnamese generals couldn't afford to ignore.