ZetsuBouKyo

I feel the exact same way. Haven't those government officials who voted for these laws ever considered that, one day, their own family members or closest friends might appear on a leaked list on the dark net? I don't believe these officials can exempt themselves from data breaches. Even if they maintain high-standard personal security, what about their loved ones? Unless they remain lonely and single for their entire lives, this double-edged sword will eventually backfire on them.

The US government's operations are so unreasonable that I suspect the content of previous collaboration between the US and Anthropic might have been trained into the Fable model. Some conversations could have leaked information, which is why this ban was implemented.

It’s just impossible.

Look at real-life stuff like laws, company policies, or school rules. Humans have to enforce them, and we constantly see crazy cases in the news. There’s no way simple rules can ever make speech completely 'safe.' I can't prove it with math or logic yet, but I have a feeling that it’ll never happen. Even humans can't do it.

We can run a simple thought experiment here. Say Case A violates rule B, so we add rule C. Then Case D violates rule B but follows rule C, so we add an exception... and it just goes on and on like that forever. It never ends. In the end, you just get a massive pile of rules that makes it impossible to get anything done.

Ultimately, we will have to face the truth that knowledge is dangerous.

Giving knowledge directly to people who cannot actually understand it and allowing them to just use it blindly can be extremely unsafe.

To use a real-world analogy, the problem we are facing with weak AI right now is just like the debate over gun legalization. Do we want to risk the abuse of guns or knowledge just to protect the freedom to own them?

I am relatively pessimistic about the profitability of those panning for gold in the downstream AI market.

The core bottlenecks are power and computing capacity, and they actually trace back to the exact same issue. It all comes down to the physical energy it takes to flip or move a single bit inside the ram or disk storage. This concept is subject to fundamental physical barriers.

There are a few ways to tackle this, like improving power efficiency, reducing model size, or pushing hardware further. However, achieving orders-of-magnitude improvement in any of these areas will cost a massive amount of time and money. I wonder if governments, corporations, and investors have the patience to wait for these tech breakthroughs.

For people who think often, ad is only useful in very few situations.

The ability to think often is ultimately a capability that only a minority of humans possess. Therefore, for the vast majority of people, ad is very useful.

For example, my retired parents enjoy buying little gadgets from ads.

Operating in these countries helps gather information in them.

The ban is meant to protect kids, but secondhand smoke is almost everywhere.

I remember a joke where a guy sent a joke to another via private message, and Xi Jinping laughed. It seems the government's mindset is the same everywhere.

I have an extreme slippery slope idea.

If they want to protect children, shouldn't they sterilize everyone?

Every child born, regardless of wealth will inevitably suffer injury, illness, and psychological setbacks. Therefore, the best way to protect them would be not allowing people to have children.

By the way, not having children is also more eco-friendly, because an infinite series simply converges.

I wonder if I’ll see this ridiculous scene in my lifetime.

According to the current shortage of computing power and electricity, I suspect that what they really want is not your data, but the computing power and electricity from your device.

If users' behaviors can be pre-labeled on their own devices, processed with AI, and then sent back, it might save a significant amount of internal computing costs.

I think automatic updates that offer no easy way to refuse are completely unreasonable.

Can you imagine going to see a doctor, and in the middle of your appointment, the doctor drags you into the operating room to automatically update your body?

That's roughly how I feel about automatic updates. If you apply the concept of automatic updates to any industry outside of software, it would very easily be illegal. But strangely, this concept is considered legal when it comes to software.

Hey, you got the point. Is there a chance that Google actually plans to use users' computers as their edge computing devices?

I agree to install it, but I don’t agree to automatic updates. The bigger problem is, I can hardly find where to disable Google’s automatic updates. In the end, I just locked the file permissions to stop that virus-like auto-update program from running.

One day, I hope to see servers walking around with cameras, recording customers' reactions to the food for the chefs' feedback.

Strictly speaking, any software that cannot easily and permanently disable forced updates is insecure.

So, I don't like auto-updating.

it's probably best to go with client-side encryption and share keys with friends privately. that pretty much fixes all the privacy issues after the initial registration, but maintaining that extension with all the company and their updates is a bit of a headache.

to take control of your own content while preventing it from being harvested for ai training, there’s a straightforward method.

- use a browser extension to encrypt comments sent to any social media platform. - by sharing your public key with intended recipients via a third-party channel, the platform only sees gibberish.

this makes ai training impossible, keeps corporations in the dark about your conversations, and ensures that any government surveillance only yields encrypted strings.

however, the platform might ban you as a bot, since this effectively prevents both the company and the government from snooping on your data.

The US Department of Justice has a proposal that Google sell off Chrome to prevent a monopoly. This might be a great approach to solve the problem.