bjt

If you could trade your current life with Louis XIV's, would you?

> Isn't it likely that inference providers like Anthropic continue to capture more and more of the share of labor as revenue?

Not if open weight models turn inference into a commodity that's sold at cost.

Yes to all that, and, why not use a clear plastic housing? Make it way harder to hide the tampering.

I'm sure it can be taught not to lean so heavily on the stylistic flourishes that bother us so much today, but writing is always going to seem vapid if you're taking 1x the amount of intention (the prompt) and inflating it to 5x or 10x the number of words.

100%. You're at the place that I was trying to lead the parent comment. There's a wide range of reasonable positions on how much to invest in any given thing like science, the arts, etc.

The public is generally bad at debates around taxing and spending, sadly. Voters struggle to accept the idea that more of X means less of Y. They want to believe they can have it all, for free, and there are plenty of politicians willing to tell them they can.

The more pertinent question is not the binary "should we fund mathematicians or not?" It's "how many?" The money you dole out to them needs to come from someone else.

Easy yes: Let's impose a tax on everyone to support at least one mathematician.

Easy no: Let's impose a tax on everyone to support one billion mathematicians.

Where are you going to draw that line? How are you going to convince a majority of voters that you're drawing it at the right place?

Is the LLM going to order all the shower caps produced by Chinese factories and try them out?

The grandparent comment said "liable". That's civil court, not criminal, and doesn't need the DOJ to be involved. HuggingFace and/or RubyGems could sue OpenAI.

States also have their own laws against unauthorized computer use (hacking). A state Attorney General could bring a suit under those laws, regardless of who is in the white house.

They absolutely could. There's a decent claim for OAI being reckless or at least negligent.

The limiting thing, in my mind, is the need to show harm. How much did OAI's recklessness hurt HuggingFace? There's some dev hours devoted to the cleanup but it's not like it devastated their business. Their legal team is probably a lot more focused on the Nvidia acquisition instead.

There are incentives other than marketing, but I doubt the SEO company referred to by the ancestor comment is planning to do lots of business in the political propaganda space.

> We can't keep pretending it's normal for SCOTUS to decide everything about our society.

That's not what this is. As the 9th Circuit points out, states already have quite extensive laws about gambling. We don't need Congress to step in to either reinforce or displace them. The courts are doing their job by ruling on existing laws.

I think they're saying that coffee is a healthier habit than soda.

The point you make is observed in compression too, though, once you start optimizing for certain use cases. When LAME encodes sound into an mp3 it doesn't give equal weight to all frequencies. It throws away data outside the range of human hearing to leave more room for what's in-range.

In this case CDC = Changed Data Capture.