aeon_ai

I've got news for you on how the economy works.

Contract law covers the use of licensed materials -- The license is the enforcement mechanism. Agreement of the model terms is implied by the use of the model.

If someone were to create a derivative model and distribute that, it would get murky if they licensed it Apache 2.0 or MIT, because users of that derivative would have never agreed to the upstream license (and may not even be aware of it), and the model is unlikely to be copyrightable.

Uh...

Seems like rage is maybe a tad misplaced?

No, you're missing his.

Technology progresses. You're playing to an end-state of AI that assumes labor disappears entirely because you have yet to see what the new labor system looks like.

> At the time of writing (23rd Oct), eMudhra has announced that it will be retiring from the certificate authority space. In unrelated news, a farmer has announced that he has shut his stable door, following reports of an escaped horse.

Ah, wit is alive and strong!

The author is obviously informed, but just as clearly biased.

Accused Dario of being part of Ilya’s coup against Sam Altman (now retracted), stated “ It’s an open secret that the training data wasn’t legally obtained anyway” when fair use has very clearly been established, and panders to the anti-AI doomer crowd with talk about how AI won’t be useful economically until we can get to the energy efficiency of the human brain while still invoking the boogeyman of killer drones and cyberterrorism.

Jev was overhyped, and the marketing was clearly looking to coin a few buzzwords, but the author seems to be intentionally ignoring the pace of development, the erosion of traditional intellectual property assumptions, and the realities of the technology. It can be overhyped, but this is very clearly the telos of all technology.

The notion that the average developer would recover from the removal of modern high level language abstractions and frameworks, learn assembly, and go back to their regular coding velocity is patently absurd.

Thanks for calling it out. Noted!

> All the devs would spend a couple weeks learning assembly and go on coding

A couple weeks?! Really slacking, why not a few hours?

Add the violin and calculus while they're at it.

Perhaps, that still frames harassing and antagonizing "Aaron Schwartz" as a bad thing (he was a "good guy"), and then implying that said bad thing should happen to AI because it is bad, when the modern AI frontier lab is operating on the fundamental philosophy that Aaron shared which is that information is free.

Compute, however, clearly is not.

If you think Aaron Schwartz would not have fought for exactly the freedom of information that would enable AI training, you misunderstand Schwartz and the nature of information freedom.

I continue to find that people strongly advocate for justice on exactly opposing sides, depending on who they have been told to think the “bad guy” is.

> But the master had already overwritten it with a copy of DOOM.

A master after my own heart.

On every objective measure, quality is improving and the trendline is clear.

I'm by no means citing that AI is perfect, or that there are no problems or challenges ahead, but the self-lobotomizing AI doomerism/rejection is turning otherwise intelligent people into a horde of anti-AI lemmings that are afraid to apply the critical thinking they believe is being lost by AI users.

These things are puppeteering blender to model things for gods sake. Are you all blind?

"Generate me an explainer video of someone holding a sign stating "I have no idea what I'm talking about" being educated about the realities of time, labor, and 'good enough'"

You're right. I didn't even need AI to get my point across.

It was AI that wrote the article, not the Author.

If your audience is the AI pilled, your inability to sense your own slop is a signal of incompetence.