And, depending on why you listen to music your relationship with AI generated music will probably shift. If it's a quiet day and I want to listen to something deeply I will reject anything AI generated as I want art that someone thought was important... but if I'm just craving background noise while I work then I care a lot less.
We're edging up on a big classical question: "What is art without meaning?"
This is a really awkward situation because while we'd really want the market to sort of auto-balance the costs between different suppliers it's also really hard to look at PE ratios right now and believe that the market is anywhere near sane. OpenAI could trivially monopolize the water supply in CA[1] with its current warchest and that would, for everyone, be terrible in some fundamentally obvious ways - so we've clearly got a pretty gigantic misalignment in the market which means we're reliant on the government specifically picking winners but ideally doing so in a sensible manner.
How many well cooked dinners is a prompt worth? Not nearly as many as the market currently says. If it were anything less vital we could probably just ride it out until the bubble bursts but if acceleration continues then in time water usage might actually rise to the levels that the most fear mongering folks are saying it's at.
1. Accidentally even - without even reaching into the realm of malicious intent.
To be fair to people's objections - agriculture is significantly more important than AI model training when it comes to improving the average standard of living - and to be fair to model training a lot of the water usage in agriculture is used on extremely water inefficient crops.
Water usage is, in my opinion, a fair reason to object to AI datacenter placement and growth - but in the arena of public opinion it's more nuanced than some of the other arguments that could be made (noise and power usage being much more suitable ones) but it seems to have struck a cord.
There are absolutely terrible takes on each side of the water argument but this seems to be the one people are focused on so I guess it's up to folks in the know to try and give as much clarity on the topic as possible.
Marginal agricultural water use is alfalfa / nut farming in the desert and ethanol corn, not products consumers actually care about. Consumers aren't clamoring for E15 fuel over E10.
While git internally uses a pretty loose system for connecting different model concepts that has always seemed more like a concession to the storage medium than a desired step. If git existed on an already ACID compliant system instead of trying to build one out of the filesystem itself I don't see a reason to keep all the references as loose as they are. If you can cascade changes with confidence you can likely just switch to using standard surrogate keys for linkages and allow the data to normalize more fully.
The core model objects in git are all pretty straightforward and their interactions well defined.
We live in a strange time politically where the consensus on ethics is incredibly detached from justice. There is a danger in giving in to mob rules when it comes to the legal system but at this point we've wandered too far in the other direction with clear corruption around Flynn, Ticketmaster and others.
I simply don't find the argument that something isn't illegal compelling anymore since our justice system is so deeply misaligned with society. We live in the era of grift.
What sorts of things are you personally doing that aren't illegal, but that someone would want to imprison you for because they think you are unsympathetic for some reason and no longer find the argument that what you're doing isn't illegal to be compelling?
I simply don't understand why our legal system needs a non-deterministic agent injected into it. What value are we trying to capture that isn't already delivered by our overbearing amount of surveillance.
the question does not really seem like a good faith question. if people on this forum can't see a reason why someone would want to use AI to make their life easier is kind of hypocritical. what, it's only good for techbros to use it, but other's can't? we know that pretty much every police agency is understaffed and those working are humans and would like to make their job easier/faster/more successful just like everyone else. unfortunately, they are running into the same thing techbros are in that AI is an oversold bill of goods that can actually cause more work than without it. and i'm saying this that has a very strong skepticism about the status of current policing.
ELIZA was a trivially simple hardcoded chatbot, that mainly reflected your statements back at you as questions, so it's not clear what you mean by that comparison.
If you were looking for an impressive example of early AI, SHRDLU would be it.
That would be true in a sane world with investors who value profitability. But everything is now focused on DAU and the network effect. Overusing their services might actually make them look better to investors who shovel more money to them to light on fire.
When it comes to residential/consumer use base load is irrelevant - but when it comes to business (especially industrial) use base load is a strict necessity. The proportional requirements of base load are fading but it is still something that needs to be considered carefully.
Do fossil fuel companies overstate the importance and scale of base load to justify additional fuel subsidies? Indubitably - but don't let their bullshit hide the truth within it that actually is a critical requirement for our power grid.
Information for non-commercial purposes should be free for general social enrichment. Information for commercial purposes should have some path towards monetization but the one we've got right now is clearly a terrible fit.
For the future, though, usually if you just email one of the paper author's with even a hint of interest you'll get the full paper and often a neat discussion about how your specific interest relates to the paper. I think people assume researchers get hounded by fans like celebrities but they're usually folks that love to talk about their topics of interest.
Why should taxpayer funded research be monetized when used for commercial purposes? We have a privatized publication cartel monetizing a public good. We should instead nationalize the publishers.
Agreed - I emailed some people about a paper recently - they no longer had some supporting stuff that I was interested in but they were very helpful all the same.
We're edging up on a big classical question: "What is art without meaning?"
reply