Lerc

The entire thesis of my commrnt is copyright is not that.

It awards a few creators outsize rewards, but suppress creation of many more.

It does not petform the job that it is supposed to do.

Indeed, perhaps I should have said

There needs to be a way to support the creation of art.

How many times were hugely popular books rejected before a publisher decided they were worthy?

Copyright far more protects the wealthy than the good. They don't need to sell your book, they just need to own the book that people are buying right now. Giving your book a chance to sell would dectract from those sales.

If there were no copyright anyone trying to sell the book $1 cheaper would be undercut by someone selling $1 cheaper them them, and so on. The financial incentive to do that goes away. People then choose to distribute based on different incentives, like the fact that they have seen something worthy that others should see. We have almost completely lost that today because the financial incentive doesn't care what it is as long as you buy it. That might lead to a world dominated by an optimisation for whatever it takes to get you engaged, or worse, addicted. That world might really suck.

There needs to be a way to support the creation of art. Copyright lets a few corporations decide the subset of available art is seen enough and available to pay for (in the hope that maybe some of the patment gets to the creator). It is not a system that works in the modern world.

why operators should have access to models that don't try to question their Daves.

I am unsure if this is terminology I am unfamiliar with, a typo of Devs, or a 2001 reference.

The best ad placement for a consumer is one for the best product of the sort they want.

Taking money to decide which of the options to show is in conflict with the goal of showing the most appropriate.

I am generally against the idea. I have seen it argued that advertising can provide access for those who could not otherwise afford it.

I am not convinced,

I would like all AI be required to state who they are acting in service of (with the possibly of declining to answer).

AI should act, To the best of their ability in the interests of who they are in service of.

It should be illegal to deliberately configure an AI to act against the interesta of whoever they are acting for.

Have a go at writing something in 1975's C.

x=-5 Is not x = -5

There's no unsigned int.

It's a better comparison to the usability of Claude than you might think. It's doable, but hardly ideal.

I guess we can come back in 20 years and see if Claude is as reliable as LLVM is today. That would give a comparison between similar aged products.

I attempted that. In videos from the last year the only things I could find were some people protesting ICE, A person accusing a mayor of sexual assault, some republican party events with protestors, and a few of people speaking out of turn being walked off by security.

Without the specific examples you described I have no idea what you are talking about. It is either sufficiently old that it could be considered an isolated incident if no more recent incidents have since occurred, or it is considerably harder to find than you imagine.

language models are trained to maximise engagement

I have seen no research to that effect.

and maximally convey meaning

Nobody knows how to measure that

They are trained to complete sequences, then they are trained to engage in conversations, produce what people prefer (with a fairly crude measure of preference, hence the sycophancy). Reasoning models are trained to produce what an observer model think will give you the right answer, the observer model simultaneously learns the likelihood of producing the right answer.

All these things train to improve a property that can be measured at training time. You could build a model to estimate engagement, but I have not seen any evidence that shipping LLMs have used a measure like this.

I can't even imagine how you could tell if a measure of meaning was accurate or not, let alone how you could produce such a measure. You could try to measure information density, but that would also include noise.

It's an odd thing, because the reason the word content is used is to permit diversity, but it seems to be widely rejected by those who claim to value diversity.

It's a good man who can bring home the sculpture that his wife likes at the end of his workday.

But why does it have to be him, and his wife, and a sculpture.

Surely the merit is in the person who brings the content that their partner likes, no matter where or when, or what.

I think the distinction is that when an AI generates the phrase it chooses to use the negation and then fills in the terms. If it only has one thing to communicate at that point then it is essentially placing a redundant rephrasing on onr side of the negation.

My use of it took the form of

A statement on how a guillotine kills people when they are powerless.

The negation then, in the first part compares that to the connotation of the previous post of an underdog battling those in power, and rejects it as inconsistent and the negation provides an alternative framing that is consistent with the action of killing a person who can no longer harm you.

Both sides of the negation make a point.

This is obviously much more common in a dialogue than a monologue, because the first part is used to reference words of the other party. In a monologue, that other party is the past self of the speaker, it suggests a change in position. I think models end up using as a short hand for realisation.

Are there any good collections of negation usage in AI with the surrounding paragraphs? I'd be interested to see what percentage of them are an expression of self realisation.

I wrote that comment entirely by myself, on my phone while waiting for a souvlaki. Perhaps the things that you consider AI tells are simply a use of language from someone in country with a different education system.

I can't really judge how I might personally benefit from the current direction because I am uncertain what that direction is, and indeed if it will be sustained.

If you are trying to allege that I have some personal affiliation to an organisation where I might benefit more than any average member of the public, then I must disappoint you. I work on my own projects, I sometimes make money from games that I make.

I do not wish for a hypercapitalist dystopia where a company could train a model on work for hire content and then forever churn out content that they assert ownership of. I don't want the suppression of ideas caused by others asserting that because they had an idea, they own it and can dictate who gets to use it.

I also do not wish for another reign of terror.

I don't think violence will make the world better, and I don't think disaffected chique will either. I advocate identifying problems, suggesting solutions to the problems and working with people to reach consensus to apply those solutions. I assume that humans are fundamentally good and in the absence of religion can generally be reasoned with. Even those who do things you disagree with probably are doing what they think is best.

I may be wrong about the goodness of humanity, but it does not matter, If it exists it's worth working with. If it does not exist, it is not worth saving. I choose to assume that it exists on the chance that it might.

Not everything that can be done should be done.

My concern is that people are being cavalier about the possibility of creating things that should have rights.

There will always be people who will never accept that a machine has awareness or rights. I suspect the major AI companies are doing there best to not have this talked about. As soon as it becomes a broad topic of conversation, it becomes a religious issue. The Discovery Institute is already spending money on this.

People worry about a machine that wants to kill us. For that to happen, someone has to have made a machine that wants. That is not something that should be done carelessly.

I don't think it was a misunderstanding, the comment was not addressing the content of your post, but rather the descision to bring it up in a context where they thought it not relevant.

The guillotine requires being in control of the situation. It can only be used by those with the power to act with impunity.

It's not fighting against tyrants, it's a declaration of an intention to be the next tyrants.

I tend towards being cautious with my information which has led to beauricracies doubting my existence.

I got my first passport at a formative period of my life (international travel does that). I looked nothing like the photo within aa year. It served as a passport until it expired but only created skeptisism as a photo ID.

I don't know how to drive, so do not possess a driver's licence. I am in a 35+ year relationship, but unmarried.

The only purchase I have made on finance was a bed that I immediately paid off because the the only reason I did it was to establish a record. This was surprisingly difficult to do because they were reluctant to let me have the bed on finance because I had no credit record.

I finally had to renew my passport when I bought a house. It was the only way I could meet the id requirements.

Prior to that I was leveraging non-photo id that could only be acquired with photo-id. It seen that will be accepted in lieu in many instances and allows you to get more similar forms of non-photo ID. All you need to get started is to find a staff member fed up with the ridiculous rules enough to click the checkbox to say that they saw a photo ID. It helps that many of the staff in these positions are more aware of security theater than the general public.

Being a land owner means a lot of those days are peassed, I can't really prove I am the person who is recorded as owning the land, but mostly organisatipns are happy that I am claiming to be someone they know exists.

Linkedin has stopped asking. I'm not sure if that means they think I am a lost cause or that anyone not on their books by now doesn't actually exist.

I think the fundamental problem is that art is not economical. Banksy once made a comment about the advertising industry, more or less to the effect that for all the corrupting influence of Advertising, the thing he truly hates about it is that it consumes the most creative people to do so.

People will make things they don't care about to survive. This is how we get reality television.

Irrespective of what the short term future of AI is, sooner or later there will be technical means of sustaining yourself without needing to work. If we aim for a society that values working on something because they believe in it, then we could have a better world. Right now it seems the only thing a lot of people are aiming for is to undermine whatever their adversaries want.

Do you have links to these videos?

You comment suggests you feel there is something wrong with what I said, could you elaborate?

I really hate the idea that AI can replace artists, or humans as a whole. I think it’s anti-human to its core.

AI can no more replace artists, than other artists can.

A sunset can be nice to look at yet be created without meaning. Any non-conscious process that produces images can produce beauty that has worth without intentionality. Any conscious process that produces artworks is just another artist.

Most artists would rather there be more artists in the world than fewer. If AI can't make art, it can't replace artists. If AI can make art (of the conscious intent form) then there are more artists.

We'll all go together when we go.

"Anti-AI psychosis" will probably grow to outcompete AI psychosis by year's end.

Everyone has their own experiences making it hard to judge what attitudes are prevalent.

From what I have encountered the Anti-AI people have been more common and more outright scary.

I have heard some ideas from the Pro AI crowd and thought to myself "Yeah, that's not going to happen anytime soon", There was enthusiasm leading to overoptimism. A lot of them are going to be disappointed.

The Anti AI crowd, which I distinguish from those who want AI done responsibly, sustainably, and as safe as can be realistically be managed. There are real criticisms to be made on real issues here. The Anti AI crowd I see seem to want to scrub the world of it, they stand in the way of any responsible implementation because it would be accepting it.

Those people scare me, the vitriol and bad faith interpretation of everything as an indicator of the proof of their reality has the tone of the moral righteousness of a true believer. The outright endorsement of violent acts has me concerned that the more radical or emotionally unstable of the group will do some serious harm. It's not the bulk of a radical movement that causes atrocities, most of those involved just create an environment that normalises toxic attitudes. That environment can incubate a few individuals that act, either for phycological reasons, status, or simple the inability to empathise or consider consequences.

I guess that means we are lucky that TVs weigh so much less now.

Where is the previous version referred to in the codebase? I'm guessing that would be the place to look for changes.

If you can't find an update at that place in the codebase saying 1.4.0 you can ask where it is. It seems after doing that and not receiving an answer would be the appropriate time to start making the claims that people are throwing around.

This seems like a candidate

https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/commit/b18bf6d1d0a92238f240bf...

You seem to be wrong about that

Nevertheless, the principles of open source never demanded more than providing the source upon request.

Fish disks were an incredible contribution to the Amiga community. The impact of a dedicated and contentious curator cannot be understated.

I think a lot of platforms today could be transformed if they had someone doing a similar contribution to Fred Fish.

I wouldn't be capable of such an effort, I think few people are, and I'm not sure if it can be done in any monetized way. The motivation has to be purely for the quality of the job.

Knowlege should not have ownership. Training and distillation should be allowed

Granting people some form of control over knowledge only serves the public interest inasmuch it provides incentive to create more of it. Mass media, effortless duplication, and copyright extensions had already broken this to the point where control of knowledge was suppressing creation of new knowledge more than it facilitated.

The world has changed, we need a mechanism that works for the public interest that applies to the facts as they now are.

to be able to do well in web design.

That's kind-of why I don't think they're doing that. Anything beyond something that works with a simple design templates looks, well, like they tried to do too much with a simple design template.

Do any of the vision models render the SVG and look at the result.

Perhaps more importantly can they do that during reinforcement training. Learning how to critically analyse the appearance of what it generates would be quite useful.

Manually feeding images back to models has been hilariously bad in the past which suggests that relating something it sees to something it wrote is not an ability it is very good at.

Well I would expect them to have been around for longer if they were to be ancestors of mammals.