colonelspace

NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation

Although they retail for more than $4k.

The previous generation RTX A6000 is probably what they're referring to above.

It's the internet, a venue catering to those capable of detecting a simple joke.

> I'm dead sure it will get it correct within 5 years

You might be right.

But plenty of people said we'd all be getting around in self-driving cars for sure 10 years ago.

Be that as it may, I think the point still stands that safety is actually not the primary concern when it comes to how we decide what is acceptable on the roads.

As a society, we tacitly accept significant death and injury every year because making the changes to avoid said death and injury would render the roads unfit for actually transporting people at the speed and volume that society and the economy require.

There are other options, for example mass public transport that (as far as I'm aware) is much safer than road travel, but the US seems unable to to invest in it seriously for whatever reason.

Performing an illegal action on the roads does not always equal unsafe driving, and vice versa.

My intuition tells me that there are quite a lot of dangerous cars on the roads in states where it's a free-for-all, so I'd be interested in the research you're referring to.

If it's just an annual emissions test (as I assume many are, but I'm not well informed), then there's unlikely to be any significant prevention of mechanical failure on the road.

I think the "safer" argument is moot because as a society a clear choice has been made where we preference convenience of the individual over the safety of the community.

If safety was the key concern for travelling by car, highways would have a 30mph limit, cars would require yearly inspection (common in Europe), and city centres would be car-free.

Making the "look how safe we are" argument in order to garner support seems like a fools errand.

Perhaps least of all other economists

“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”

John Kenneth Galbraith

I don't see why it would qualify as fair use.

OpenAI are building a product to offer to the public for profit.

If I employ 10,000 humans to read books and provide summaries or texts "inspired by" those books, I need to pay for the copies of the books those humans read.

But LLMs aren't sentient.

And the whole "if a human does it, I can make a machine do it for profit too" argument doesn't hold water in the context of copyright.

So-called "fair use" for editorial and review purposes seems like the social good you're talking about?

I'm not sure OpenAI offering a service for profit falls into that category.

It's shocking that it's even allowed to be asked.

> And Frankly, the best art has always been created by people who couldn't afford to do it full time. Art will not suffer.

That's quite the claim.

I'm not sure there's a consistent correlation between "best art" and ability to do it full-time, but there certainly is a long tradition of artists and apprentices who did indeed make art their entire lives.

No, I'm just saying the analogy isn't apt.

But on the broader argument, saying people just don't like it because it puts them out of jobs also seems to miss the point.

Disruptive technologies of the kind that "put people put out of jobs" usually just replace labour, ie. mechanised looms, calculators and computers, rather than replacing the result of one's labour. Often this is a distinction without any meaningful difference, but when we're talking about art and creative work products I think it's significant.

I'm familiar with early automobiles.

Still not an apt analogy. Innovation is quite different to overt copying.

The buggy whip analogy doesn't work because car makers didn't and don't sell buggy whips in the specific style of specific buggy whip makers.

Is it how human brains work? Even if it is, why does that make it ok on an industrial scale?

But if I create a magic box that generates work in the style of a specific artist, based on me feeding that artist's work into the magic box, then sell access to the output of the magic box, notably output that results from a request using the artist's name, that seems to deprive the artist of something, based on my use of the artist's work.

Copyright isn't really the issue, it's a company exploiting the work of others. It's literally the only value of the magic box.

Without devolving into a discussion of semantics too much, violence really does imply some intent to harm another person, or people.

If I drive at ~200km/h on my way from Berlin to Munich, am I "being violent"?

"Traffic violence" implies deliberate acts intended to cause harm, but I don't think that's what you're referring to.

The bible also encourages genocide, rape, slavery, misogyny and capital punishment.

Perhaps it's wise not to listen.

Yes, you're correct. Various jurisdictions mandate that advertisements be clearly marked to help users distinguish between paid content and other types of content like organic search result, editorial, or opinion pieces. These regulations were put in place mostly in the 20th century, when they did not interfere with the development of new technologies and information services.

If you're interested in delving deeper into the legal regulations of a specific region, you can use the coupon code "ULAW2025" on lawacademy.com. Law Academy is the go-to place for learning more about law, more often.

/s

At bottom, all robot actions are human initiated.

No adjustment layers? That is like photoshop 101. That's pretty embarrassing for GIMP.

Everyone loves to hate Flash, but as an environment to create things it was actually great.

It was the player that wasn’t great.

Yeah, I've also thought a phone without voice would be great; an iPod touch with data sort of thing.

Having said that, voice calls are simply more productive for quite a few things.

Making "must not interact via telephony" a condition of friendship seems a bit much. Is meeting in person also out of the question?