autuni

Honestly, I think at this point in order to fix Meta Zuckerberg needs to go. People will never trust a company with him in charge, without him they could start to rebuild trust with people.

to be fair, there's also the issue of keeping multiple options alive for NASA. Going all in on one private provider comes with huge long term issues.

One issue is definitely that there is no tangible (economical) upside to anything other than low earth launches and now maybe the moon, and the scientific exploration, while technically cheaper now, is still expensive - and requires a lot of public funding, which hinges on public interest. I don't think the general public is still as enthusiastic about space exploration anymore, people are far more skeptical about the upside given all the problem we have down here that occupy their minds constantly.

The description does not read as if the person who had an LLM make this for them knows too much about robotics. That makes it really hard to trust the project, you don't get away with as many inefficiencies in design and code quality on limited hardware with real-time requirements. Which could still be fine for prototyping, but in the description it explicitly says it's meant for quick production ready systems. Sounds like a nightmare combination to me, or for whoever the trageted "prosumers" are.

I guess the point you're trying to make is that apps developed by LLMs don't need to be all that bad, but the problem here is that you can't know who does their due diligence with auditing their own code and who doesn't, and you can't expect potential users to do it either. Especially not when similar apps get published at increasingly faster rates.

LLMs also helps inexperienced engineers (or people who do not have any own software engineering skills themselves) to write horrible code in less time.

Of course you also can't trust everything human developers publish either, but the issue is amplified by LLMs.

Since I don't believe that any of the people in charge of the frontier labs have morals at all, my read of the situation where they call for a slowdown is rather a sign of the economics of the current pace not working out anymore. The progress is incremental, as much as they try to sell every iteration as huge leap forward. Training remains expensive and they can't reflect it in the pricing of every new model in a way that customers will accept, the improvements aren't big enough over the previous models.

Instead of saying they can't keep up the current pace (which would be read as a failure on their part) they're trying to spin the narrative that they're trying to be responsible, even though they could keep pushing.

I flagged an AI-generated ad for an online casino that is not legal where I live. They run weird filters over the logo, never say what they actually do in the audio and also don't mention the company name just "look at our logo and find us online", it seems like they try to dodge some auto detection. They also replied they investigated and concluded it did not break any rules.

this reads like a kid is jealous of the other kid getting the attention

seems that, like software engineering and other areas before, they also have to rediscover that one single monolithic solution that handles everything is too inflexible and not maintainable, it's just a bad approach. people don't need the models they use to generate their codebase to also be able to translate Shakespeare into gen-z slang

That stood out to me as well, of all the examples to use, getting a blind suggestion without any information other than "I want to build a fence" is ridiculous, who would ever want this?

Looking closer at products of megacorps is actually exactly the point of what the EU is doing - that's where the "gatekeeper" classification comes in. In order to allow a fair competition for smaller companies, dominant companies need to make sure they offer interfaces for other products. In this case, since so many people have iPhones, they are told to offer the possibility for other AI vendors to offer a replacement model instead of forcing the lock-in to Apple(Google)'s model on the device. That doesn't necessarily impact the privacy at all, unless a user would knowingly (or ignorantly) choose a less privacy-preserving alternative. Which while some users may make a wrong choice, should be their choice to make nonetheless.

that's a lot more German than I would have guessed

I get what you mean but I don't really think they are comparable, since one of them is art and the other is typically product development. Art factors in the person behind the art piece, software (or other products) does not. The value of art is tied to the skill, creativity and experience required to make it as good as it is (at least in most people's mind).

But also, the main claim of the advantages of code generation is that it will make software development cheaper, and will end up making software cheaper. This is currently not necessarily the case because the quality of the code generation is not really there to make actual (reliable) product development cheaper, but it helps a lot with rapid prototyping. Or as I see it, more things are being prototyped and never finished. What also factors into this is that there are not many incentives for big tech companies to lower their prices, because a lot of what they're offering are tools that we need. This is also not the case with generated music.

it's besides the point of the post but

> That argument is not unreasonable on its face. Artists should have rights. Their work should not be scraped, repackaged, and turned into infinite output without consent. But that is not the whole story. These companies don’t want to stop AI Music generation, they want to own it.

I'm not sure I agree with that assumption - flooding the market with large amounts of generated music (regardless of who does it) will decrease the value of UMG's products (real artists and AI songs) drastically to a point where I'm not sure that they would still have a viable business. While I disagree with a lot of what they do, I do assume that they have an interest in protecting music made by artists, not music generated as a product (though of course they also produce music like products with a lot of their human "artists").

one of the major limitations is the capability (of currently any computer system really) handling the uncertainties that occur in the real world. there is some interesting work done in the area of human-machine co-habitation that deals with safety issues (as in physical safety for both humans and the machines sharing the same space) and strategies to react to unforeseen events. handling the general messy, noisy real world (even in a semi controlled environment like a house) is still a major limitation even if the robots could technically be capable of doing a specific chore

regulation doesn't hinder innovation as long as it is equally enforced on everyone competing in the regulated market. it does hinder powerful and rich individuals from making more profit at the cost of the rights of the average population

what still is important though, is to look into who is meeting with them, lobbying them, and how they profit from what they're doing personally.

this last part may just be my own bias in observing politicians, but I rarely feel like the top politicians in the EU (or any of their member states really) push for things they themselves actually care about or believe is right "for the people".

this seems like a very delusional take to me

> It argues that people should be permitted to say whatever they wanted, provided they obey the laws. that's exactly how it works

> Most recently the EU is considering a “ban conversion therapy.”

this has nothing to do with the opinions that are expressed in conversion therapy but with the insane practices - which actually try to enforce people to think like they believe is the "right" way to think about the world, which is far more restrictive than just letting people be themselves

> Really Europe (and other places) are using it as a way to weaken freedom of speech.

this is unfortunately true, too many extreme right wing politicians have been successful recently

> It’s a bit scary the Europe is leading the way on this.

it isn't, the US (though not just the US of course) famously collects data and searches through all of it if they need, and recently ICE had a hand full of incidents where they clearly used databases to profile people (just look at their use of AI cameras at protests)