davidguetta

We can blame open ai but we should also argue that government website should be secure...

French people data has been leaker like 4 times and every time its like "eh too bad"

are we talking about weird fantasies / bdsm or just "having a partner" here

they were in 2023

Was it not a former miiltary building wrongly designated by claude as a target ?

> Where no digital cash transaction can be trusted or validated

lol i have bad new for you.

in anycase any attack to the finanical system would be resolved super fast and the ai would be cut off if that happen. this will literally never happen for that reason

Yes and there's even a stronger argument that we could REQUIRE frontier model to be open weight / open source.

At the end of the day they were built from data that did not belong to them. So it would be fair that humanity REQUIRES to give back the output of that.

It's a bit like the free software thing: you can still make money from it and providing service to it, but if you build it based on another free stuff the derivative should be free.

Why not do the same for intelligence ?

Wow great

And do what with it ?

how much of the "codex discussion" was actually ideas also generated by open ai ? this is a bit the elephant in the room

I am not rewriting. I am saying AI is not more dangerous in my opinion that Nuclear Weapons.

I just don't see a bigger danger in AI than nuclear weapons tbh. If you can provide one to me i'll be happy to change my mind but most if what i read is

- cybersecurity => well bro if you can hack system with an ai you'll find way to make them more safe with ai too.

- biological issues => ok this is the ONLY one where an insane dude / regime could generate a super powerful. but i don't undesrtand how you can argue that we should stop AI in the risk some ai generate a super powerful virus. If you don't get there first (to AGI) and let a bad actor do it first (china is not gonna stop) then you will have no chance countering this virus anyway

- the robots taking over is fantasy to me.

but once again i could be wrong

I don't know man, i think racing to AGI to it is still the best thing to do.

People claiming dangers and risk are just pretending or posturing. There's no more tangible risk than nuclear weapons, which we handled, and the upsides are insane.

it's funny how insane reasoning like yours has been normalized to justify equally insane policies of letting unchecked thirld worlder in

As a right wing / afd ally said in France litterally said yesterday:

Do you know where extreme-right is low ? in Danemark. You know why ?

because the SOCIALIST PARTY implemented the end / started being tough ob illegal immigration.

it never was about anything else than the majority of people tired of being force-fed immigration by european elites

solve this issue, solve "extreme right"

and it was the same in the US

at that point people not seeing this are mentally ill in my opinion

Like "stop consuming" was a realistic idea lol.

bringing the price down b.c. competition != no moat.

There's not 100 frontier labs, it's not like airline companies

Pluto is a planet.

This is a terrible undesrtanding of leadership

also at the end you as ceo have to sell to other humans. no human will buy from an ai

nice

now do the same for robotics, because itnernet trained vlm + action head was really a dumb take

Im waiting for the article called "stop desantropomorphizing llms" when everybody will finally accept they think like us, partly because maybe the intelligence is universal and partly because, well the datasets are fucking human bro

> The chance of validation

i got the ick at that. i'm not ambitious for validation. i'm ambitious to maximize my agency, IN PARTICULAR from the need of validation non ambitious people typically have

At my work i put these simple rules

- PR descriptions should be human-written, you are a human communicating to another human. it should be limited at 4 bullet points, and maybe a "details" section in the (rare) needed cases

- in general, if you want human attention, produce human effort

Not all industries require good software engineering tho.

one good swe out of ten with high authority may be enough in most organisation

"everythin you don't like" is not a scientific argument, neither is the illegality of data centers on AI quality

especially when 99% tasks don't need fable, and certainly not the next model

"good interference" vs "bad interference"

this is a ludicrous argument in general. having people, even in power, give their opinion like musk or obama is not "interference"

stop trying censoring opinions you don't like.

if it's through funding or other way of intereferece like ngo, just ban it yes

the beginning of the arguments was good but the "because of randomness" is wild

Rhoda Ai also does vidéo to robot models

copyright is bullshit

you only need to handle immigration if you have immigration. problem is kinda solved if you don't have immigration or at least "immigration that cause problems"

i know many immigrant who don't pose any problem withou need for "handling" or "supervision"