Nothing changed on my case (and many others), is that perhaps you never grasped the big picture of our view, in that copyright law should be soft against consumers that violate it (for non-profit reasons) and hard against corporations that do.
I wish there was a open fund anyone could donate with the exclusive aim of suing Perplexity, OpenAI and others for copyright violations, where a team of lawyers would help the cases with the most likelihood to win, that would try to highlight that the way such systems are "learning" have little similitude to the intent of the law when it was written to give layaway for other artists/authors to create similar creations.
Around 2016 I was visiting the bay area for the first time (and the US for that matter) and my phone ran out of battery, I was kind of lost without the map app and then I spotted a pay phone boot in the distance under some strong sunlight, I wondered if I could get some help with it, maybe bus routes back to the place I was staying, I pick the phone and a few tiny plastic crumbs fell from my hand, it's then when I noticed the handset was completely hollow, I looked more carefully and everything else was hollow too, it felt surreal, a bit like twilight zone but like I traveled through time and just realized it, I knew people didn't used them as much anymore but I guess I just hadn't grasp that they didn't exist any more.
They are all controversial matters, therefore conflicting sources are not only expected but desired to be informed by the LLMs when asking such matters, the report by well-funded likely-biased sources (e.g. Israel government) would obviously needed to be given less credibility, estimates that are widely different that all the rest would also need to be given less credibility, and so on.
For a start you don't ask such subjective questions, that's a bit silly, instead you ask for e.g. the death toll of Israel vs Palestine in the last year, the number of deaths surrounding the tianammen square protests, if it gives you a straight answers with numbers (or at least a consistent estimate) and citing it's sources it's a good start.
"Created a better search experience" sure, just like eating human meat would create a better dinning experience because there is a lot of humans near you, at the end of the day what "AI" is doing is butchering a bunch of websites and giving you a blend, in the progress making you no longer required to enter those websites that needed you to do so to survive, because they are monetized by third party ads or some paid offering.
Yes it is, in the way of "I'm gonna work on X thing that is now much easier thanks to chatGPT" and then never work on it due lack of time or motivation or something else.
Maybe there could be an agent that is in charge of this and it's trained to automatically create a file for any new agent, it could even temporarily delete local copies of MD files that no agents are using at the moment to free the visual clutter when navigating the repo.
I know it's not the most tasteful thing to speak about right now but Sharon and Ozzy have been vocal about their full support for euthanasia, Sharon watched her dad suffer with Alzheimer and it defined her views in the matter. So given this news plus their las gig being just weeks ago I assume it's likely what happened, or at least something that is arguably the same (e g. stopping life sustaining devices, not necessarily taking anything)
Last stop for the crazy train, see you on the other side!
Of course not, I would just ask for a MCP that watches the generated movie so I can use my time for more important matters, I just want the system to work by itself entirely, we could have these full consumerism silos and we just enjoy being called it's gods, but perhaps we could automate such egocentrism too.
> Making fungus-resistant agriculture is challenging because fungi share many cellular similarities with humans, making it difficult to develop fungicides that target fungi without harming plants or humans.
Like covid wiped us all right? A deep understanding of our genes means we are more likely to quickly create successful defenses against future hostile organisms, again, the most "hackable" specimens, those in which we could accurately predict the effects of our changes in their genes (including its interactions with virus and vaccines).
And the same homogeneity means that developing a defense for any future hostile organism is much more straightforward, just like e.g. developing software that works on windows is much easier than developing software that works on windows, Linux and mac.
Easiest to manipulate by humans, not necessarily by virus and bacteria, believe it or not virus and bacteria don't think the same way than us; there may an overlap but is likely not a full overlap.
If the institutions of science and technology lasted thousands of years evolution would prefer people with the less hardened firmware, as in, the ones to survive and pass their genes would be the ones with the most "hackable" genes.
They gonna focus on high value targets, that mean giving it for free to colleges and others in exchange for their cooperation, giving it for free to Hollywood plus custom solutions for their needs, in exchange again, for their cooperation, the entire internet was just a great bootstrap plan not their lifelong strategy.
There is 2 things that are gonna help a lot, one is better classification, in that regard advances will help purge itself, just like our digestive system filters what we don't need models will do the same, e.g. scientific and factual models will have zero jokes in it's corpus, and you will know that the response you received came from such a humourless model, the second thing is just plain feedback, teachers will use AI and give it thumbs up or thumbs down and the machine will use such opinion over the opinion of most students, it will also favour the input by students with the most promise, those who win math championships and all that jazz.
I don't think that AI being somewhat good is the main stopper, it's that we know for certain that it will improve at a giant pace, the very same prompt that triggers a mediocre book today will trigger a good book tomorrow (as an aside, I firmly believe that the word "trigger" is way more apt than "create" when talking about AI output), there is billions of dollars invested to make sure of that, and is not like we haven't seen unbelievable leaps already for art generation.
If you read the other comments made by this user they are exactly the political leaning you expect, including support for the BBB among other similar opinions.