jklinger410

it was never intended to create some vast ARR revenue stream or reframe the way people look at AI. If Meta wanted to exploit it for personal success then they had lots of opportunities to do so.

They release the base model as open source, everyone uses it. They make a paid version, no one uses it.

They make no money from the open source version, they get no social credit from it. Where is the benefit to having an open source model?

It's so fun how corporations are protected from individual liability but also their money is treated a speech.

I can't control other people. I believe in extreme accountability. If my arguments are not working on someone, then I need to make different arguments.

This is just a fact. It's a ponzi scheme.

This is like the guy at Techdirt writing another article about how dumb Elon is.

Hey thanks for letting me spam BetaList and get a startup I worked for some decent exposure!

More blood will be spilled of unsuspecting academics before the credulity of the science industrial complex can be restored.

There are truly an amazing amount of red flags in this otherwise well meaning and short post.

I think everyone is reading way too much into this. Sure there is some circular transactions that are sus, but this ain't it.

Let us pin this comment and see how it ages

Shilling for an old employer. This is a neat super simple device that takes incoming headphone and converts to FM.

Whole House FM Transmitter (https://wholehousefmtransmitter.com/)

Someone is having a case of the Mondays!

Skill issue

They got paid in crazy equity that will never be liquid!

You don't think the concerns have any validity? Sounds kind of hand wavey to me.

The HN crowd is going to hate this article, but I think it's an important discussion to have.

I'd like to challenge the crowd here to think about this from a different perspective. Let's assume you aren't interested in spreading propaganda to promote a certain piece of technology. Consider that you aren't in control of people's opinions.

This is like a UX issue. It doesn't matter if you think the login button should be in the bottom left, if the users want it to be in the top right, you put it there.

So consider this QA feedback for the technology. How do you make people not feel this way about it? Go do that.

Only works in Chrome!

I'm suspicious that the car's system can do this. I don't think we should be assuming your car can tether internet through bluetooth until we see someone snoop Toyota-bound traffic being routed through their phone.

then the car will use your phone as an internet connection and send all the same telemetry data back to Toyota

How?

you all didn't do the political action work to put me on the hook for your healthcare so thoughts and prayers, HNers.

Ah so your answer is AI will cause most people to live in abject poverty. Good talk.

To be fair the last 60 years have seen wealth distribution consolidate at the top of this country at rates never seen in human history.

Unemployment rampant. All production remains in the hands of a few. All power (tokens) remains in the hands of a few. Goods are cheaper but no one can buy them. Path to the upper class now guarded closely by tokens, potential avenues for entrepreneurs diminish rapidly. Own an AI or compute, get someone to give you tokens, or live in poverty.

Distribution of abundance in current time is close to evil, America reducing entitlements and support (not expanding). Rampant waste. No reason to think any of this will change.

Why don't you show us how AI will not create abject poverty?

How are we not going to be begging whoever controls chip fabs and electrical plants for compute tokens? HOW!? EXPLAIN IT.

You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. They use AI and also despise it because it will turn the world into one big caste system. Ones with access to compute, and ones without.

If you want people to like AI, show them a future that doesn't leave them in abject poverty.

What is relevant is if a law limiting speech is narrow enough and if it serves a purpose that is aligned with the constitution. Anti-defamation laws clearly do serve such a prupsoe (they limit only specific types of speech that is not of public interest, and they exist to protect the victim's constitutional rights where they conflict with the a user's free speech right

I'm sorry, is there something in the constitution that gives you the right to not be defamed?

The government is only providing the venue for resolving the dispute.

The government provides the venue, the decider, the rules of engagement, and enforces the decision. The government stands on the side of the plaintiff, ready to turn the resolution (that the government decided) into the same result as if it were law.

The distinction is nonsense to me.

Laws that force the government to violate the constitution are unconstitutional. So yes, a violation but with more steps.

A ruling in a civil court that is enforced by a government is the same thing as the government ruling it, but through transitive properties. It can't be not enforced and enforced at the same time (the argument that civil is somehow not judicial).

In reality we are just griping that our government is too pussy to amend the constitution, and we've already written laws that subvert it, and those are being upheld by a corrupt/politicized supreme court and bullshit case law.

The government won't stop him from saying whatever he chooses to say. The government might enforce costs, should he be sued for what he says and is found liable.

This is just a shell game of limiting speech.

But the Supreme Court has found that this is an acceptable limitation on the first amendment rights, with the specific limitations.

Right, and I think this example is more about maintaining a civil society than it is strictly about freedom of speech. I think it's pretty clear to say that "freedom of speech" has limitations, making the word "freedom" contextually debatable.

What happens if you don't pay your civil liabilities? Civil vs criminal is a silly distinction when it comes to discussing right suppression. Jail time is not the only way to suppress a right.