Trombone12

LLM's are definitely the sort of thing people in general mean when they say "AI".

The act of using "an AI" to generate a license restricting the use of AI can have many motivations, but an obvious one is the simple "use their own weapons against them" principle.

It's for fairness, the EU has to handicap itself after the US decided to ban abortion and persecute trans people.

There were plenty of top tier Covid vaccines created in Europe, and a Danish pharmaceutical is currently crushing the US weight loss market: your jingoism is deluding you.

Since value is only defined by what people are willing to pay for it, and lacking any extra common rules, these acts of copying simply signal not accepting the demanded price: so the value claimed by the owner was not the actual value, thus they have lost only their self-deception about the value.

You can just drop "intellectual" and there will be no fundamental change to the argument, it's only the name of the laws defining "property" that change.

Uh, surely "I know it is more complicated but I will not mention that" is the lazy stance?

You asking a Replika AI for evidence against natural spillover does not amount to making the basic science "an increasingly shaky claim".

Also, try to use less double negations in your writing "I don't necessarily think it's wrong that that comment shouldn't be allowed to pass without challenge." is an atrocious construction.

Why? Covid-19 was a natural spillover, not a "synthetic virus". If he does feel vindicated he's a straight up loony conspiracy theorist.

"Hey, any IP lawyers want to sue Microsoft for stealing our IP?"

The board do own Chat-GPT though

I guess that's because most "startups" aren't controlled by non-profits.

Because you care about accuracy?

> My lesson from this: outcomes causal inference is very dependent on assumptions and methodologies, of which the options are many.

This seems like a natural feature of any sensitive method, not sure why this is something to complain about. If you want your model to always give the answer you expected you don't actually have to bother collecting data in the first place, just write the analysis the way pundits do.

A program is not some discreet, one time, thing, it's an extended process involving many many decision points: It's pretty flippant to pretend that statistic reasoning developed for when you draw things out of a hat is equally valid when talking about the chances you will produce a 20 year long enterprise of illegal human experimentation.