59percentmore

>What would a medieval jury do, tasked to rule on an AI encouraging suicide or murder?

An interesting conundrum. Is the maker of the AI considered to have been practicing magic and summoning a demon? The user? What's the movable chattel object in this case?

People were self-conscious about their writing (quality, speed) before LLMs. AI seems like a way out of that weakness. That's just the nature of a tool: it seems to extend our ability. People are going to use it if they don't have a better option.

The only cure: be the person people can turn to instead of the machine, whether that's helping them write or helping them become better writers. And, yeah, you'll have to do that cheaper than the AI (netted against the social cost of being the guy/gal who got caught slopping).

They spoiled the twist ending to the trailer. It's right there in the article, right before where the video was linked/embedded. It's unavoidable for readers who engage with the article in good faith; the writer abused the benefit of the doubt that was given to them. I don't understand what you're arguing.

"You can't live in those, there's no indoor plumbing!"

Buddy let me tell you about 99% of human existence.

That last bit is important. For a generation reduced to rooming in small apartments, $100-$200 a month is a lower marginal cost than a larger room/apartment. Maybe not worth it for stuff you can easily replace, but if you have enough things that never come back once they goes away...

That's disheartening. Even the AI got it after some pushing (i.e., it stochastically parroted back my intended meaning in a detailed explanation, which you see above).

If you can't understand where even it "could"... Seems like it's a "you" problem.

>that you also don't care for explaining why those are the same thing to you

I literally just did.

There is a clear emotional arc that the trailer tries to construct, and the article demolishes it by revealing the twist/punchline. It's disrespectful to the artists that made the trailer, the devs who were relying on it to generate excitement for the game, and the viewers like me who had their experience ruined by knowing what was going to happen.

Is this a serious question?

Yes.

>Looking at an AI output and deciding whether it happens to match the fuzzy idea you had enough or not, simply isn't the same thing.

Yes, it is. I say this as someone with a BFA. The feeling of a happy accident from a slip of the tablet pen and a "mistake" in the generation is the exact same: "I wasn't expecting that, but it works." Same when it's an unhappy one: "That's wrong, we need to fix that."

I don't care to spend time antagonizing you with speculation on why you have this wrong, but I can say this with certainty: at the high level of determining if something that I am willing into being, through interfacing with a process and tools outside myself, aligns with my vision and taste, there is no substantive difference between gen AI and traditional methods beyond that which exists between any two given traditional methods.

Well, I suppose it's something that a Verge article held back from spoiling the trailer until just before where they embedded it in the article. Usually they put it right in the headline.

I wish people would stop supporting this trash site and let it die.

This is the fun part: the AI bubble bursts and the price of components keeps rising. Why? Because companies can just sell you a glorified thin client and force your average user to buy their compute, all subscription-like, from data centers.

I don't think that's quite it. Particularly in America's common law system, written laws are not "the law", in terms of what actually happens in enforcement, or in judgment when something ends up before a court. You have to deal with unwritten or disparately-documented standards, norms, case law, etc. LLMs don't know and can't account for curveballs that appear in practice; they'll correctly tell you what the law actually says, and work off that documentation, and blow your case, because that law isn't "the law" in its practical totality.

The lawyers with contempt for AI aren't necessarily the best "critical readers and reviewers of documents"; a good number just appreciate the substantial moat the current system keeps for them, and are contemptuous of 1) attempts to cross that moat without paying a toll, however likely that attempt is to fail, and 2) the way such failures highlight that our legal system doesn't work the way most people seem to think it does, because that increases the chances that the public will become dissatisfied and push for change.

I guess if it doesn't cross that moat, there cool with it?

Well, the key is understanding that the old paradigm wasn't just rare and lucky; there's a good chance that it was unfair, and actively robbing someone else of dignity.

What's happening to you now may also feel unfair, but it's up to you if you're just going to be pissed on your own behalf, or if, now that you recognize that everyone else is going through what you've been newly-introduced to, you're going to go, "Hey, no one should have to live like this! Fix this crap for everyone."

>Theres nothing to celebrate, no skill to honor, no sweat and tears to salute.

I don't care about any of that. I just want people to be able to see what's in my mind's eye at the highest fidelity possible.

The petrodollar is already value expressed in energy. It's not as pure as BTC, because of geopolitical pressures and since it's sovereign fiat that can be (and has been) printed into nigh-unrecognizability... But BTC is itself warped by derivatives markets, grossly unequal distribution leading to market manipulation, etc.

We're not so different, he and me.

Welcome to the world everyone else has to muddle through.

The solution has long been, and remains, "Organize and demand enough money to live on from ~20 hours of employed labor a week, spend the rest of the time as you'd like."

>It's not just you, your attitude is very common, what else am I supposed to do except hate it?

---

>have "problem"

>don't care

>have no problem

Life is literally so easy.

And why can't that apply to people who use generative AI? Expression isn't about seeking recognition, in the sense of clout or popularity, it's simply a matter of "I want other people to be able to see what I see."

If I compare what I'm able to produce by hand, and what I'm able to get the computer to spit out, it's pretty clear to me which is closest to what's in my head. So why do I have to be ashamed of that?

It's interesting to hear that lawyers are coming to you with those questions, because my read was that there was almost universal contempt for AI within law (save for the few "dumb" enough to use it and get caught).

  The reason for this is, I guess, all too familiar for anyone in a creative field: surprise, it’s generative AI. The ongoing devaluation of the work of artists and makers, chewed up and regurgitated back to us like a mother feeding a baby bird with a subscription model. I have some hope for my friends in other artistic fields; AI art is shit, kind of by definition anti-art, embarrassing to look at and cringe-inducing to be associated with.

I'm so f*cking tired of this wrong opinion and the Reality Distortion Field that's been set up to force people to pretend that it's true.

Traditional art is still valued. Good AI art takes time and effort and taste and usually some amount of traditional skills. And even some bad AI art is actually a good idea that needs a few talented friends to make happen traditionally - but no one would ever see the vision without the terrible AI rough draft. There is room for all of it, and I'm sick of having to skulk around in the shadows with the things I've made for fear of tripping some Shrill Cancel Protocol.

And if you're worried about your traditional art job, organize; the people who want to replace you with AI will replace you with cheap outsourced labor instead, if you let them. AI isn't the problem.

Antis are running out of time to stop what they wish to stop without resorting to destructive methods (bold and extreme action is already necessary).

Pros are running out of time to square their ambitions with a public that's about to go from needing a leg up to a public that wants their heads.

This is a stunning amount of credulity after "looted vs found" and "https://x.com/i/status/1322999903753220099" -style memes.

Shareholder primacy certainly is relatively new, but it's also true that "the system-level goal of capitalism is to extract wealth". After that, hopefully we use that capital to produce and distribute goods "fairly".

But Capitalism isn't synonymous with the free market, or any other market configuration, and it's totally possible for the people who control the means of production and distribution to... not produce or distribute. In fact, that may be advantageous in their efforts to secure more capital.

Ultimately, "they" really always have been greedy villains. Shareholder supremacy just made it worse.

The reason municipal fiber doesn't serve more customers is, again, because states were lobbied by telcos to make it illegal. Likewise, the loopholes that allowed the intended broadband buildout to be stymied. The problem is ultimately one of hobbled regulation allowing corporations to move and abuse freely. That makes the problem the free market.

It's not worth it if you can't have a swarm of them that debate philosophy in their off time.

It's not the government, and I'm calling bullshit on your narrative because there's no mention of municipal fiber, and the industry's successful lobbying to make it illegal in most of the country. THAT would have been REAL competition.

>Their government paid to build a nation–wide fiber network

So did we. The last step is nationalizing that network and finishing the build-out in-house.

The inflection point is whether or not everyone else can convince the "most capable laborers" who are about to be cut from the "Most Capable Laborer Club" to join the Tang Ping Rebellion before real price discovery happens on their salaries.

No one seems to get that you have to do a general strike BEFORE they lay everyone off. It's a gambit. But either you actually were all that valuable and you can get your job back if it fails, or you weren't and you finally acted in your own self interest.

It would cause an instant liquidity crisis that would lock up credit and securities markets. The federal government would be forced to backstop large market participants as years of suppressed price discovery was unleashed, decimating balance sheets worldwide. This would result in a fundamental rebalancing of apparent value, which those withholding payments would have a primary hand in influencing.