4,416 karma · joined October 14, 2011
Discord: riskable#4986
Matrix: @riskable:matrix.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/riskable
I see this stance every day on writing Discords. Just mentioning that you used an LLM for anything (even unrelated to the story you're working on) can get you banned.
Marketing and advertising aren't the same thing but I swear both sides of that coin have devolved via some process of carcinization where their claws emerge from the darkness everywhere people gather. Especially places where those claws are inappropriate and unwanted and yet it still works.
When I see ads for things on YouTube, I automatically assume it's a scam... Because it almost always is!
Anything touched by AI is starting to become "the fruit of the poisonous tree" for a lot of people and it's getting ridiculous. I've chatted with people who will refuse to read a story because they think the cover art was generated by AI (even though they don't really know; they're just guessing). "It's AI slop."
One of the listed stories was almost disqualified for that very same reason (AI cover art). Another was controversial because the author used AI to generate a random name for a disease.
If we had better terms for the levels of AI involvement, maybe people would get a little less worked up about it?
If you have the power to do so, why wouldn't you perform your own testing right now and release the results? It's a marketing/status gold mine.
If you find that western models don't have the described anti-china bias, then maybe you won't publish anything since it's not as interesting—that would be evidence there's no conspiracy.
Hence my conclusion that if we don't hear anything soon, the anti-china accusation is false.
The only concern is copyrighted works in the training data. Example: If a government filled it with millions of books, that data should be accessible to the public (to verify everything). However, that would piss off publishers to no end.
This statement warrants testing.
If we don't see an equivalent study out in a few days saying that this is true, it's clearly false. The methodology of the study was clear and easy to replicate (in short order, though you'll need the hardware/money for tokens). No reason why other groups shouldn't be performing the same exact tests with Western models (open weights or not).
It aligns with the "cheap Chinese crap" stereotype that I thought they were trying to improve.
To summarize my take: Come on, guys! Really‽
Inside the virtual layer, you get real ext4/btrfs and real terminal applications will run at near-native speeds (supposedly) but their ability to interact with other applications (Android side) will be limited.
In short, it's not a real computer. Not a general-purpose one, anyway.
Google thinks that the selling point will be that enterprises can have their locked-down environment in the Android OS which allows remote wipe capabilities and heavily-sandboxed apps while it also allows developers the power to run whatever they want inside their little virtual Linux sandbox (e.g. VS Code). Sort of like WSL.
What they fail to understand is that enterprises will want just as much control over that sandboxed Linux environment as they have over the Android side of things. Making the entire purpose of the device moot.
Another idea behind the project is that it will allow Google to sell laptops that run processors that are traditionally used in smartphones without having to port the drivers and whatnot to general, open source Linux. Things like deep sleep states with rapid resume should "just work" because it's using Android which was what the vendor targeted when they made the chip.
The foundation of the entire device is hacks upon hacks in order to avoid doing the right thing (and possibly giving up market share to generic OEMs that might make their own ARM laptops).
The actual solution to all these issues is for mobile processor companies like Qualcomm to just be good Linux citizens.
What I'd like to see now is how good it can get when you feed the micro models like qwen3.5:0.8b into itself to solve problems. Will it be like toddlers discussing neighborhood politics at a pretend tea party or will it actually get some decent results?
Another game-changer (if this style works out): Just get a model like qwen3.8:27b onto one of those model-on-a-chip cards that makes it 1000x faster and see how fast it can go using the same method.
If asked my friends a weird question I know they are highly unlikely to know the answer to, of course they're going to get snarky with me. If I don't get a gentle ribbing out of it... Are they really my friend or just a polite acquaintance?
That has yet to be decided in court. At best it's a violation of the terms of service, but the only restitution for such a violation is termination of service and by then it's too late.
Remember: Distillation is literally just giving the AI a prompt and seeing what it spits out. If that were illegal, we'd all be guilty whenever we used AI.
Examining your competitors doing business is as old as business.
What you can't do is distribute the lyrics without the author's permission.
When you ask DeepSeek to retrieve the lyrics (and it does so), the real question is this: Is DeepSeek merely acting as an intermediary/ISP according to the DMCA (in which case they'd be protected under the safe harbor clauses) or are they illegally redistributing the lyrics without the author's permission?
Whether or not you own a copy of the lyrics is irrelevant from a legal perspective in this scenario.
My guess: If they just retrieved the lyrics from some website and delivered them to you (because you asked), they're an ISP. However, if they pulled them out of their own database, they're violating copyright.
LLMs are far too lossy to be able to store such lyrics in their entirety. In fact, they're not even "lossy" since they're not even trying to record such information. They're just weights for how likely it is that any given word will come after another.
If no one has to work to live, how many would spend time writing instead of working at a job they hate?
Plagiarism requires near-perfect copying. If you summarize, paraphrase, or re-write something using different language, you're not plagiarizing anything.
Everyone has a right to summarize or paraphrase whatever TF they want. That includes Big AI companies and individuals using LLMs.
It is not worth giving up our rights just to placate a handful of very wealthy authors.
This is because SynthID and similar watermarking methods for LLMs don't just change the random seed. They take additional steps (that I have yet to read about) in order to detect when someone changes a few words of the output, trying to remove the watermark.
The other takeaway is that just by knowing a watermark is being applied gives an attacker an advantage in working around safety features because then they know the output isn't based on true randomness and can take advantage of that in a similar fashion to how breaking cryptography becomes easier when the RNG isn't truly random.
It sounds like the author got locked in some sort of, "I follow" loop where he got used to trusting certain companies to keep him interested and entertained, then they sold out to ads and the lowest common denominator of entertainment audiences.
The Internet is the same as it's always been! There's infinite ways to use it, full of all sorts of fun communities, new hobbies to spend too much money on (hehe), and endless amounts of people to engage with.
If your iPhone is bothering you that much, maybe it's time to try Android or go totally off the grid (so to speak) and install something like GrapheneOS on a used phone (the horror!).
How about designing your own damned phone? It's not impossible. Make a thick ass brick with a huge battery and dual screens that barely fits in your pocket but can do amazing things a normal phone can't: Give it an IR emitter so you can turn off TVs from a distance. A CO2 sensor so you can tell when any room you're in is getting stuffy. A friggin laser projector. Whatever!
Instead of being a passive intake of all things corporate Internet, make something. Contribute!
Then you look and see it made it to your country last week and give a gentle nod to the app, then close it. Because you know, "any day now, I'll have 1000 of that $0.01 thing."
Context isn't an issue. It's style.
The argument the author is making is that if you use an LLM to write for you, you end up with a homogeneous work that's just like everything else.
In journalism, that's sort of what you want.
In novels/function, that's the opposite of what you want.
However, there's degrees to these things. If you're looking at a sentence you wrote, thinking there's something "off" it can be helpful to have the LLM rewrite it just to see how it thinks it could be better worded.
I've done this a few times and I do find it helpful. Just like the author, I never just accept what it gives me. I simply use it as an OK-ish copyeditor that's good at spotting issues and suggesting solutions.
Are we talking about turning everyone into philosophers and somehow ascending to a higher plane of existence? Yeah, AI isn't going to help with that (probably).
Or are we talking about useful, positive benefits to every day people like better speech recognition, tools for the visually impaired, disease research, physics research, science in general, and loads of other areas where AI is improving things?
Everyone has a right to scrape the Internet. That includes corporations who scrape the Internet to train AI models.
If we take away that right, how would the Internet even work? It wouldn't.
Example: I could tell curl right now to download this techcrunch article and all the comments about it on HN and I'd be violating no law. I'd be infringing on no one's rights.
If I then distributed these downloaded files without permission then I'd be violating copyright law. The thing it certainly would not be is theft!
People claim AI companies are "stealing" human labor but that's not true. They're saving (in their databases) the fruits of human labor and other bots/software. Then they're using that data to train AI models.
The only conclusion I can make whenever someone says "AI is theft!" is that they have no idea what they're talking about.
My assumption is that what they really mean is, "AI is bad for labor!" and possibly, "cheap AI is incompatible with capitalism." Which very well could be true.
But if AI really undermines the value of labor that much, the problem isn't the AI, it's capitalism.
Contrast that with STM32 where you have to constantly reference the data sheet to make sure you're using the correct pins for say, I2C when you're running in a particular mode. And since you're running in that mode, you now can't use other pins for certain things. Ugh! I hate it!
Then there's the issues with picking the right-size part number and making sure the pins you want are 5V tolerant, checking that you're using the correct ADC, and... Ugh! It's a pain in the ass!
Other chips aren't much better as they all have those same problems.
ESP32 is nice because of the zillions of built-in peripherals but configuring the damned thing can get really complicated really fast. It's so complicated, in fact, that they had to make a Makefile (as in `make menuconfig`) that rivals the Linux kernel in the sheer number of options/submenus.