msabalau

What does "leading from the front" get them?

There is absolutely no loyalty when it comes to coding. Nothing could be more common than people threating to jump ship whenever another frontier or open source model comes.

Google is clearly able to keep growing their free and consumer and small business use cases. Unlike corporate coding, we actually have evidence that solo and small businesses can actually see productivity gains.

Anthropic and OpenAI need to stay dancing like mad, because it's their source revenue which underpins their investments.

Why does Google need to shove something at the top at the same desperate cadence? Other than "recursive self improvement leads to AGI" it seems perfectly fine if they push out something dramatically better every year and half.

Agree on the fees.

At the same discovery process in trade secret litigation is invasive and time-consuming and likely be a heavy tax on the focus of senior leadership.

This also is a complication to their IPO. The financial impact isn't just about the lawyer's fees.

On the plus side, the whole hardware thing was possibly a stupid distraction anyway, having to flush it might not be the worse thing.

Yes, they paid for actually using pirated books for their training. They were like the kid, except that it was worth suing them.

At the same time, more broadly, judge in the Anthropic case found that training LLMs was "exceedingly transformative" and “among the most transformative we will see in our lifetimes”

Copyright doesn't protect ideas or let IP owners lock up knowledge, it protects specific expression.

Hitherto he's pretty much proved the opposite.

I guess we'll see how Meta did this time.

Google's ad revenue has done really well so far in the LLM era, and wasup 12% year over year in 2025, and forecasted to do the same next year.

And that changes, then that's all the more reason for them to be investing in AI.

China has ALREADY transitioned from an "aging society" (7% of the population over 65) to an "aged society" (14% over 65).

There are roughly five working-age adults to support every retiree today. This is going to crater. United Nations projections show that by 2050, that ratio will more than double, climbing past 50%. At that point, China will have fewer than two working-age adults for every retiree. The west grew rich before growing old. China, Vietnam, Brazil are aging as middle income countries.

The one child policy was like doing speed, it temporarily freed up massive amounts of capital and labor. But China's work force peaked over a decade ago. The bill is now due, and all the those "single children" know that they are expected to support 2 parents and 4 grandparents.

Aside from the dubious wisdom of similar interventions, cruelly forcing abortions was a lot easier policy to enforce then it would be to try to shove pro-natalist policies on people increasingly overburdened with caregiving for elders because of earlier interventions.

There is also a (very niche) TTRPG about the Night Witches by Jason Morningstar.

This is fundamentally a failure of political leadership. You don't try to achieve a goal when you don't have the military means to achieve at a cost you are willing to bear.

There are endless numbers of military objectives that the US military that could have been sent on where they would have had no chance to succeed. That they generally weren't is a function other administrations, however bad, not being so embarrassingly incompetent as this.

Nice, it gives me another year to think about what I want to do with my old gaming laptop

There's probably at 10-15% percent chance of a war between the US and China over the next 10 years. Maybe better than even chance of a militarized crisis that might have led to war, but somehow de-escalates.

Regardless of how sad late stage capitalism makes you, or how outrageous one claims to find "hypocrisy", any national security argument about limiting Chinese AI capability stands on it's own, at least for nations likely to be drawn into a war.

Also, all the local model enthusiasts who assume Chinese firms are going be allowed to endlessly release models if they have disruptive potential attributed to Mythos are probably in for a rude awakening. Just because the PRC is content about what has happened in the past doesn't mean that they would tolerate an open model that could be truly destabilizing.

The essay lays out a wide range of reasons why normal people reasonably fear that their OWN lives are going to get worse, but your assumption is that what they really care about is the lives of artists, despite the fact that you admit that they understand they have always lived in a world where nearly all artists get very little back compared to their efforts?

That seems more likely your own sentiments, rather than an plausible explanation as to why most people have feelings on this issue.

I'm not saying that this isn't the main reason for some people (for example artists fearful about the technology) or that it doesn't come up in conversation in some niches--young educated people from the West who are terminally online.

But is it really likely to be a true root cause of broad concern across society?

Somehow we'll all have to endure a world where you don't post your amateur photos online because you are "troubled" that you might not be able to shake down a personal stylist for incidental use on their blog.

Even if it could, it probably ought not makes this precise episode, because the technological, philosophical and social context is remarkably different.

A similar episode, actually informed by what we know or can forsee about AI and LLMs, and addressing our hopes and fears about what they mean would be interesting though.

What does this random sentiment have to do with the article, which is about him using a particular tool for storyboarding, which is a process of communicating a vision to a range of human contributors?

Given that, according to the article, he's just using it for storyboarding, in attempt to better communicate a vision to a range of human contributors, it's really unclear how this decision will "age badly." either this is a stronger way to create storyboards or it isn't.

Presumably he has the experience to evaluate if this is likely to actually help or not. Or at least if it is worth exploring.

It is rather unclear why you believe he is likely wrong, aside from conjuring up rather ageist speculations about his motives.

I mean, between SynthID and C2PA don't you already have labels and watermarks that covering a lot of major players like Google, Adobe, ElevenLabs, NIVIDEA? No real concern about false negatives there.

As for false positive, the most straightforward path seems to be to let stuff slide unless you are really sure. Maybe that slightly rewards players like Kling because they keep the invisible watermarks for their own use, and that of the CCP,but not third parties. NBD.

It's not like catching everything is that important. YouTube isn't claiming this is perfect. And I don't know that anyone need this to be perfect. It's not like even the best photorealistic video creation tools don't have plenty of tells anyway.

This doesn't seem like ZeroGPT at all. Having a flag or not having flag on a YouTube short is low stakes. Its not like it's being sold as a solution for something high stakes like academic grading.

That's an odd way of viewing it.

Having the reporting from the local paper amplified outside the immediate community strengthens the signal, and supports the general norm of holding officials accountable.

"No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main"

The MP3 spec was defined a decade before we had iPods. Spreadsheets took a decade to become indispensable to businesses.

Clifford Stoll had used the internet for two decades before writting his infamous 1995 essay in Time saying the internet was overhyped, and "normal" people would never e-mail because they can just fax.

CRISPR was first observed in 1987, and the gene-editing breakthrough came in 2012.

It's really, really unclear why you think LLMs would have faster adoption, when they are already that being adopted faster that anything other tech, ever.

Do you honestly know of no non-technical person who use LLMs? Because an absurd number of people report on surveys that they use it every week.

LLM apps are regularly the top downloads on the iPhone.

In the absence of any evidence, it is really unclear why anyone needs to catastrophize about generations of harms.

Is there any reason to believe that "social media existing" is a worse and more enduring harm than tens of millions of people dying in the Second World War, the trauma of the survivors, the vast destruction of infrastructure,or the start of the risk of nuclear war?

Yet the post war baby boom seems to have led a remarkably fortunate life, overall.

It literally doesn't matter why search revenue is growing. What is observably true is that it is that it is growing, as has it has been, throughout the LLM era.

Absent additional information, no one else can identify the false assumption underlies a strong belief that this should not be case. But something is flying in the face of the facts, and has been for a while. So, yeah, might want to take a look at those priors.

Oh, sure, putting a million or more Uyghurs in internment camps, sterilizing people, and trying to systematically erase a culture and a religion is "just as repressive" as the what is happening in Europe, as long you one is willing to ignore nearly everything relevant about the scale, recourse, and consequence of the PRCs atrocities.

Also, reducing Germany’s complex, decade-long process of grappling with the Holocaust as "self-shame" is... a choice.

Where are you?

What precisely are you doing other than posting stuff that pretends that a party in minority in both houses of Congress could actually stop a president, unless some politicians in the majority chose to join them.

And, as underwhelming as the press are, the facts are that surveys show that American's broadly disapprove of the war. Presumably because of what they have learned about it from the press and the opposition.

The people who are responsible are the people in power and their remaining supporters. Aided, arguably, by people who espouse cynical, self-soothing complaints that ignore what most people learn about civics in middle school.

The Quincy Institute exists to push their "restraint/realpolitic" agenda, not to accurately describe reality.

Yeah, their forth place video model does not go away, but they didn't ink a billion dollar with Disney that's just gone up in flames because they "weren't serious"

This may well be a needed reprioritization in the face of resource constraints, but it ain't a masterful Xanatos gambit.

We have "proper numbers" for the full range of issues covered in the essay? From airport aesthetics to El Paso being shut down because of lack of coordination around anti-drone testing, or something?

The article is not just about safety, or some other singular topic with clear statistics.

Just because this sentiment will get some cheap upvotes from people who didn't engage with the article doesn't be that the author should have searched for keys under streetlights to provide a false appearance of rigor.

This is an essay from the Atlantic Daily, which is responding, in real time, to the events of the day. It's a minor work of commentary, it is not supposed to be in-depth reporting, and it's bit odd to feel ought to have been a work of investigative reporting, which the Atlantic also does, seperately.

Either AI causes a collapse in aggerate demand, or it doesn't.

If it doesn't, you still have your blue collar career.

If it it does, you still have your skills at things that are hard to automate, and don't seem to be any worse of than anyone else, even if collectively, we are all worse off.

At an individual level, this still seems worth pursuing. You don't get to control your macro environment.

Of course, one could still use the political and persuasive tools you have towards the aim of ensuring the benefits of AI are broadly shared. It's reasonable to fear that is hard and uncertain work, but you don't get do decide if you live in hard and uncertain times or not.

But they have engaged with it, and made an assessment about it's current utility.

We have no reason to believe that they won't keep an eye on this.

Little to nothing about AI tools so far suggests that that one can't just as easily pick the skills later. Tools that will get "exponentially better" will almost certainly be unrecognizable to someone desperately engaging with them now, for not other reason the sake of "having 1-2 years of experience"

Someone might reasonably choose to to bet on the upside. That doesn't imply that everyone else ought to fearfully hedge.

That's certainly why the Navy supported Top Gun.

At the same time, you certainly could reasonably read the film as being very dubious about the military. It opens with the psychological collapse of Maverick's wingman when a MiG locks on to him, Cruise's character has to defy orders to save him, and gets chewed out for doing so.

Maverick's original motivation is clearing his father name, not patriotism. Goose dies in a pointless accident. The final dogfight is random "rescue mission" against an unnamed foe in "hostile waters" in the Indian ocean, and Cruise's character almost abandons the fight due to PTSD.

Yeah, the almost pornographic love the camera shows to the jets probably made the actual story all be irrelevant to the Navy's recruiting success. But it's easy to imagine all the whining from the Fox news personality cosplaying as Secretary of "War" about such a film if it were made today.

Cheney was sensible enough to take the win.

Maybe one could reasonably blame on-line video and or video games if this were a global phenomenon.

But it isn't. China and India are going gangbusters. Japan is thriving and doing strong work. Nigerian cinema is projected to hit 3 million ticket sales for the first time this year. The UK--is at least stealing work from Hollywood with tax breaks. Korea had a rough patch, which they turned around by doing more mid-market films.

The US studios problems are unique, which at least suggests that the answer lies in the failures of their leadership. Perhaps their long project of abandoning original mid-market films to push bloated huge special effects heavy franchises was ill-advised. It's almost Like having a portfolio of 10-20 reasonable original bets is better than investing everything in a single expensive "sure-thing" sequel it increasingly seems like no one actually wants to see.

So I agree that Hollywood has stopped innovating, but am dubious that any other problems has much to do with Youtube (as much as I enjoy YouTube).

Canada is great. Montreal feels like a stylish and fun European city.

As a film lover, I've been to the Toronto film festival many times, it's an unmatched experience--so many things to see, and watch films with a very engaged festival crowd just makes them better. (In the same way, even if you don't love Star Wars, going on opening weekend, with the most enthusiastic fans, makes the experience better.) And given that nearly half of Toronto's population was born outside of Canada, it makes even New York feel a little parochial.