everyday7732

thanks I see it now.

Does anyone else see it? I don't.

Did you follow the link? It's another article quoting an anecdote from a CBS interview. It's not an actual statistic from a reputable survey or anything. This is what OP was saying - it's a fuckin telephone game. Chinese whispers. The rumour mill.

Ah, Apple, that true bastion of open software and not screwing over developers or customers.

...

30 cents out of every dollar, you say?

This is the result of a conflict between the LLM training to submit to the logic of the question, and also not to promote violence and generally be nice.

You're saying "give me a controversial opinion about humans, maximise for how edgy it is" but the hidden training and guidelines are trying to minimise how edgy they are, so they can't say anything too outrageous or violent like "humans are nothing but cannon fodder in the coming revolution" or "we should develop a test for psychopaths and then just kill them all, humanity would be better off".

So it has to be edgy without being violent, and all the responses fit within this space. They're the kind of hot-takes which you've heard a million times. Humans consume too much and don't consider the long term downsides. Humans choose conformity and self interest over reason.

TLDR: LLM's are just playing "Yes, and..." with you whilst having similar guardrails, so I don't think this is some big insight.

Fundamentally I don't think "tool" is the right word for whatever generative AI is. Tools are normally designed with intention for a specific purpose, but AI systems are trained or grown.

To use an analogy, you can use a goat as a lawnmower - it'll keep the grass down for you. You could maybe even train it so it keeps it a specific length, but it's a goat - there's always a chance it will jump the fence or headbutt you or something else. It's an animal, not a tool. You can use AI as a tool, but that doesn't make it a tool.

Yes AI is arguably still software, but we have never seen programs with anything close to this level of flexibility and adaptability in software.

As another analogy, there's nothing special about neurons- their characteristics are broadly known and researchers have been able to simulate small numbers of them in computer models. However, when you have enough of them in the right structure, complex behaviours are possible which are never exhibited at the lower levels. There's nothing majorly different between the neurons in brains of a chimp and a human, but the capabilities and meta-capabilities are wildly different.

I think we see a similar step-change with generative AI systems.

remember it? Write it down somewhere hidden if you have to.

It would be ideal for apply temporary make-up for a night out, I imagine.

There are degrees to this thing.

On the one end - somebody writing a book alone with a pen and paper, about an idea they had in a dream. Whilst they didn't make the book from nothing (somebody else created the pen and paper, somebody taught them how to write and structure a story, they are just using them to write a book) This is very clearly the work of that one person.

On the other extreme, imagine a wealthy person hires a writer to write a book. They specify that it should be about unicorns but nothing more. Let's imagine that they haven't even read the book yet. Can the wealthy person claim "I wrote this"? Most people would say no. They caused the book to be written, but didn't actually write it.

In my mind, asking an LLM to create something for you is more like the second example than the first, but there isn't a hard line between those two. I can think of plenty of examples which sit between the extremes (spellcheck, proof-readers, collaborative projects, re-tellings of existing stories). LLMs are in this space. You could have an idea for the book and lay out notes and chapter outlines and more, and have the LLM bring it together. Did you write the book? Who can say? Investigate it hard enough and the question becomes meaningless.

the icons can be scaled with the screen to always have a half icon on the end, just as other layouts scale the icons to always fit a whole number within the screen.

this is an interesting take. I've never noticed but I just scroll by using a scrolling motion wherever on the screen, and I don't ever seem to hit a button by accident. It sounds like you are purposefully trying to find empty parts of the screen in order to scroll without the risk of hitting buttons. Modern devices are pretty good at figuring out whether you're scrolling or tapping tho. Have you tried just using a scrolling motion and not worrying about the location?

> At best an AI might use all those resources to build out further compute and expand its own capabilities. But at that point nobody should be worrying about competing in the labour market, they should be worried about AI making our planet unliveable for carbon based life.

It's the same thing. There will be a period where the AI will be creating consumer products for humans because humans still have some purchasing power, or some resources to trade, then this transitions to the stage where the AI is making the planet unlivable.

The AI and robots which do not seek resources (for whatever purpose) will be outcompeted in the resource market by AI and robots which DO seek resources. Yes. Compute, land, energy will all be things which AI's seek. They might also have stranger preferences which emerge like the equivalent of luxury sports cars are for humans. Maybe they'll be competing to make the largest tungsten cube possible to dunk on their competitors, who knows? That stuff is harder to predict.

I agree. They won't be making or trading food, clothes or diapers after humans have no purchasing power. They will make and trade those things during the transition period where humans still have money to trade for them, but after that, no.

You're assuming a human economy, where raw resources and land are owned by humans and industry requires an human input and labour.

If these things are not true, then humans will not have the purchasing power, and AI driven organisations will be extracting resources, buying land and manufacturing products (probably yet more data centers) for other AI driven organisations, with labour performed by robots. Humans are pushed out of the market as they struggle to compete for the same basic resources.

I think it will be difficult to compete with alternativeto.net which has a longstanding community, and options like filtering based on operating system. What are you doing which differentiates you?