recentfuture.bsky.social
Lawyer, author, musician, Echofull, mad.
127 posts
23 followers
47 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I also say this while being, because I'm informed by my own low standards, not super skeptical.
Viewing the Turing test through the lens of Carlin's statements about the stupidity of the average person, this seems achievable. Maybe it's already accomplished. Artificial and generally intelligent.
comment in response to
post
50 percent seems low. That's plenty of time to silently move the goalpost. With lots of similarly situated companies, themselves owned and staffed by "the experts," I can easily see the development of a consensus among experts that "we did it."
comment in response to
post
As Derek explains, a system where copyright owners call the shots on AI development will benefit exactly the big companies that most working artists loathe - the monopolies and monopsonies whose buying and selling power keep the cost of artists' labor low.
comment in response to
post
Okay, yeah, I'd watch that. I get it. It all makes sense now.
comment in response to
post
This is not a true story.
comment in response to
post
I asked Google to explain Goodhart's Law, and it gifted me with the opportunity to try three more times. A Wikipedia search directed me to a relevant article after one measly interaction.
Obviously Wikipedia needs to step its game up.
comment in response to
post
Nice try, but you won't hypnotize us with your right wing communist propaganda.
This is why I don't engage with tech journalists with Simpsons-style profile pics. They're all right wing communists.
comment in response to
post
Option 4: Remove the "social" from the media.
Use this as a place to look at pictures of birds. Or plants. Whatever. Don't post, don't react, don't even use a profile pic, just see pretty birds, then close. This is the bird app, now.
comment in response to
post
Without a more specific set of facts or allegations, I think of it as Frankfurtian "soft" fraud. Fraud requires lying. This seems more like it's based on bullshit. Just incompetence and indifference masquerading as competent optimism.
Often, though, the lying comes after the bullshit is exposed.
comment in response to
post
Drug Wolf is dope.
Did it work?
comment in response to
post
I'd also suggest that someone interested enough in philosophy (ethics in particular) to study it for years may have an enhanced tendency to avoid certain unsavory industries or careers, at the cost of some job opportunities. Of course, you could graduate as a nihilist, too.
comment in response to
post
Meme culture makes the episode implausible now. I cannot believe for a minute that they would have had such a hard time figuring out the Tamarians had a metaphor-based language with all the memes that would have been circulating among the PADDs.
comment in response to
post
Dang, they're out here writing fresh fact patterns for torts exams.
comment in response to
post
An answer may lie with a Bluetooth keyboard and an old android phone/tablet, maybe running some minimalist Linux distro. My cursory research tells me getting that to work would be iffy.
comment in response to
post
People gotta eat. Even artists. I get that. I also want creators to be able to create. I like it when they can do so cheaply, too, without the need for corporate patronage to bless the message. I see the slop, too. We all do. I'm holding out hope that something new and good and scary will emerge.
comment in response to
post
If you think generative AI has any capacity to be used to make new, original works (and I do) I think there's reason to pump the brakes before we kill off untold worlds of art before it can even be created. That's happened before (see Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc.).
comment in response to
post
I hear you, and I understand the fear, but concern with the alignment is, to me, equally hazardous. I think we risk hurting another generation of artists in the name of sticking it to big companies (who are currently losing vast fortunes at the moment for their tool-making efforts).
comment in response to
post
It's copyright. Sec. 1201 of the digital millennium copyright act. I could explain, but character limit.
comment in response to
post
Sure they aren't actually intelligent, but they can produce highly valuable hallucinations of WMDs, and other super valuable threats from our preferred enemies.
Plus, if you want, you can just ignore them, because what do they know?
comment in response to
post
But my (perhaps-overly simplified and not legally-supported) view is that Sec. 106(2), which prohibits the unauthorized PREPARATION of derivative works, is on its face, a prior restraint, and as such, should be considered a violation of the first amendment.
comment in response to
post
I don't follow. "Transformative use," as a piece of the fair use doctrine is, if anything, a tool for expanding (or acknowledging) what is permissible under copyright law.
comment in response to
post
But we got Bio-Dome, so on the whole...well, we got Bio-Dome.
comment in response to
post
Please point me to something that can defeat this pessimistic, exhausting position.
comment in response to
post
As a believer in the "right to be sued" theory of fair use, I'd say that you are right, but without some kind of copyright equivalent to an anti-SLAPP law, the de facto right to a broad vaguely-defined monopoly has been, and will, with rare exceptions, continue to be, achievable in practice.
comment in response to
post
You've made it!
comment in response to
post
Personally, when I do joke photos, I make really stupid faces, because it's a lot of fun.
I'm also not famous enough for people to be able to put my name into a prompt with any reliability. Hopefully, if I'm ever that famous, the training data will be loaded with really stupid faces.
comment in response to
post
They forgot to mention the need to include citations in their prompt.
comment in response to
post
I don't know what this is or who you are and I'm not gonna dig to find out, but it's dope.
comment in response to
post
I was at RDU on Sunday and saw someone who looked just like you, and I wondered to myself if I'd recognize you IRL and what I would do if I did.
The point is, you should know you have a doppelganger and they're clearing the trail ahead of you.
comment in response to
post
"What if I told you that I made headphones that you never have to charge. With superior sound, and reliable pairing. With a stylish lanyard so they don't get lost or separated..."
"They've gotta cost way more right?"
"That's the best part!"
comment in response to
post
If Bluetooth headphones had come first, and someone invented wired headphones, they'd be celebrated as a genius.
comment in response to
post
Comments elsewhere point out it was not a real post.
www.snopes.com/fact-check/e...
comment in response to
post
I can describe futures where the absurdity just keeps going, burning money forever, and people are constantly living out games which make no sense holistically. Some of those futures are deeply stupid, but that's not such an unusual feature. Some could be a lot of fun for a while!
comment in response to
post
There's no error in your logic. Your error, if any, is insisting that the outcome will or should be logical, or that it's a logic we will want. Or maybe you're advocating for reason.
It can be Keynes by way of Camus. The market can remain irrational.
comment in response to
post
Sometimes I read your posts and think "hey that sounds right I like that," but I also worry my whole view of the Internet is too stuck in 2005 for me to be sure I'm not just an old man yelling at (the) cloud.
I appreciate the Achewood references, but they aren't helping to alleviate my concern.
comment in response to
post
Agreed. Affirmative visions of the future and whatnot. It's tough to sell something when your pitch is, "Please believe us when we say the other side is worse."
I don't want Democracy to be another thing Millennials/Gen Z "killed" alongside fabric softener and Reader's Digest.
comment in response to
post
We need the approval data from the alternate timeline where Harris won.
I expect it would be better.
Still, if a person doesn't vote because, to them, both candidates suck, then you can't prove them wrong by showing data about how badly one of them sucks. You're proving half their theory.
comment in response to
post
"Consensual conversations..."
I have a sneaking suspicion that there is someone they forgot to ask, and it isn't Jesus.
comment in response to
post
This is exactly how I described the prospects of my own career when I first started out as a lawyer. Almost word for word.
comment in response to
post
Is it being abused?
I'm sure you've done a full write up somewhere, right?