FrancisMoodie

> If someone generates an image with a signature on it and doesn't share it, what harm does that do?

It is not "someone" who is generating this image with a signature, it is a product of a company that has ingested the entirety of all human work without paying anything towards all the people who created that work that is creating this image. Of course it is now an issue of this same company that they are using watermarks and signatures of people who created works this product is being trained on.

Companies are not people. And you can't go and ingest all text that has ever been created (and digitized) without paying anything without now facing some scrutiny over how you are rearranging that body of data and selling it back us.

We are being sold the idea that this product is going to replace everything, AGI is here, ASI on the horizon, but it can't understand that when you generate an image it cannot take the signature/watermark from the training data? And it is now the fault of the user who prompted the image creation (not the watermark creation)? Bullshit.

I mean, not really, since the UK was trying to renegotiate an existing deal (which they profited from for decades) towards a deal that would favor the UK more than the EU and would trigger an entire blow-back of other member-states wanting to renegotiate on their EU responsibilities without losing the advantages that this deal brought, whereas the deal with Canada is a new deal where the EU gains better trading and less dependence on the US and Canada gains better trading and more security if their next door neighbor falls apart even further.

The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something.

Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election. Sure, the relationship between EU and UK had strained over the years, but trying to pin this on the inflexibility of the EU feels a bit misdirected.

Huh? In your example these many teachers were paid for teaching these students and were able to make a living off of teaching without the students compensating or attributing their financial (or career) outcomes to the teachers while now we have a system where we are expected to pay a monthly amount to a corporation that has inhaled all human knowledge without any financial compensation to the people who created, managed or maintained this knowledge. The effective difference being that our knowledge, which used to be a means of income, has now become a subscription cost.

For rich people who want to uphold the status quo these two things are identical, sadly.

But doesn't the fact that WE have to feed the existing chats back into it and WE have to do further RL prove that your point is moot? Consciousness does not wait to be prompted. Consciousness does not need anything fed back into it because it is already there because they experienced the actual interaction. A conscious mind does not have an on/off switch where it waits for another being to flip the switch in order for it to learn or experience. These systems are static without human intervention. They are in that sense still a lot more like a computer and a lot less like a living organism that exists.

This comment is being down-voted because this post isn't talking in favor the Iranian regime, it is talking about the atrocities that the people of Iran are having to live through, how their own government is self destructing and willing to take everyone with them, so a post about whom the regime has supported feels like it's missing the mark.

No one in this thread is thinking "This makes me like the Iranian regime" or "this is in favor of the Iranian regime". And so ofcourse your pro-Israel comments are even more besides the point, especially because this article is about the suffering of the Iranian people and you're take is "HN is anti-Israel whilst believing it is pro-Israel". HN isn't a single person, it's a lot of people with differing opinions and sometimes you'll have a pro-X sentiment and another time it might go the other way.

Also labeling 'pedophilia' as a 'conspiratorial trope' kind of defeats your entire comment, but maybe that's just me.

Ofcourse we're gonna compare being against the use of technology for Mass surveillance/Autonomous weapons with being racist, like wtf kind of argument is this? So because businesses can't implement racist policies they shouldn't be allowed to have any policies concerning the use of their tech? Mindblowing.

Journalism isn't valued by how many opinions have changed, it is there to report on stories that are or have happened. You ask for consequences in your comment but how can there be consequences if there are no reports? Absolutely baffling take.

Yes, and AGI will cure cancer, Alzheimers, Huntingtons and all other diseases known to man... by killing us all. /scifi

Something I think people forget when it comes to the valuation of bitcoin is just how much of it is used to fund illegal activities (Betting, Drugs, anything on the darkweb,...). I honestly believe much of the valuation is linked to that, but I have no source or proof.

If all companies fire 50% of their engineers, how will anybody find similar new jobs? In an ideal world software productivity doubling WOULD be a huge boon for the economy IF companies used the increased productivity of their engineers as a way to manage tech debt, R&D and other issues that were put in the backlog because historically there were no resources for this. In reality all companies look at increased productivity as a source for layoffs which does not translate in higher output but the same output done by less people. Which is a net negative because now you have 50% of all engineers without a job and no discernible increase in quality of deliverables.

They had a control group who also went on a reduced calorie deficit but without oats and found that the oats eating group had a much higher decrease of cholesterol, it's in the article.

I don't understand why it always has to be one or the other? Why can't we have both? More sources of energy means more reliable energy distribution, multiple fail-safes, in summer there is more solar, in fall there is more wind, in winter we probably need power plants to uphold the need for energy so everyone can stay warm. But this polarization of things, just like with politics, is so stupid. They all have pro's and con's. We should be investing in all of them, maintaining as much different sources of energy as possible and reassess the situation over time. Or am I missing something in your comment?

Bitcoin and other crypto coins have a practical use. You can use them to buy whatever is being sold on the darkweb with the main product categories being drugs and guns. I honestly believe much of the valuation of Crypto is tied to these marketplaces.

I wanna push back on this a little, sure, openAI has a certain level of detail in it's dataset because of the fact that you actually have conversations with it in order to use their product, but we're talking about a short window of time since the inception of ChatGPT. Google has all your searches (if you use google.com) and all of your browsing history (if you use a chromium based browser) and all of your emails (if you use gmail.com) and they have been adding to this dataset for a lot longer. Personally I stopped using google.com and I have tried my hardest to avoid Chromium-based web-browsers in the last 5-10 years but they still have a hefty dataset of all of my actions before that or when I'm on a (work) computer that forces me to use their systems. Because of this I'm not entirely sure OpenAI knows my intent better than Google, purely based on amount of data processed.