foolofat00k

Very honestly hope this stuff is all gated behind eu-only products/flags.

The thing that EU regulators don't seem to get is that I (and many others) have knowingly and intentionally opted in to this walled garden. It's simple, it generally works, it's relatively secure, and I don't give a half a shit about the cost. I do not want or need competition to drive down the price because I do not care about the price. It's a luxury product.

If the end result of this regulation was better software, better hardware, and better co-design, then I'd be all for it, but this just isn't going to be the case. We're just going to end up wading through sea of shitty, malware-ridden third-party bullshit that provides near-zero benefit to mainline apple consumers.

At least as likely as a positive outcome is that the experience for mainline apple consumers will get worse because Apple will need to dedicate engineering resources to interoperability instead of feature development.

That's just the problem -- you can't.

Not because you can't distinguish between _one_ bad piece and _one_ good piece, but because there is so much production capacity that no human will ever be able to look at most of it.

And it's not just the AI stuff that will suffer here, all of it goes into the same pool, and humans sample from that pool (using various methodologies). At some point the pool becomes mostly urine.

Once again, the UK gov refuses to pay more than like 30k a year for engineers and then plays shocked Pikachu when things aren't done properly.

I'm not sure if you disagree with me or not from this comment. Tech isn't the only thing that affects the relative strength of individuals vs corporations (regulation, social pressures, etc).

Also I think it's not unreasonable to argue that corporations are more powerful today than they were during any of the time periods you've listed here.

The thing that people consistently miss with these types of conversations is that any increase in the sophistication of the tech that exists to measure the world gives a relative benefit to corporations over individuals.

This is because those organizations almost always have more resources to dedicate towards making effective use of that information than do individuals.

Very often you as an individual are up against a team of PhDs and engineers whose job it is to enable the corporation to beat you, and the more data they have, the more likely they are to win.

In this respect, there is basically no tech that does not benefit corporations more strongly than it benefits individuals. This is one of the reasons that regulation is important.

Fwiw I don't think "serious generative art developers" are the target audience at this point, that's probably on the order of .01% of their users

Very probably, yes. I'd be shocked if more than 60% of Americans even have a 401k/pension, let alone one with any meaningful sum invested.

Fwiw this is what I assume apple's long-term ai strategy is.

Let the hype-funded unicorns fight to develop (& end up commodifying) the tech and then design/sell selling devices that can support it locally. In that world, the AI assistant that you buy is a discrete piece of hardware, rather than a software treadmill.

Of course, this could mean that you end up on a hardware treadmill, but I think that's probably less bad, granted we can do something about the e-waste.

This take just does not concord with reality. The rate at which innovation has happened since the first patent was issued in the 1400s is many orders of magnitude higher than the rate at which it happened before.

I'm would not argue that patents are the cause of this rapid pace of innovation, but the data does not come anywhere close to supporting your claim.

That's just not what that term means.

I think you're missing the point. I don't think we should have prevented the development of this tech. It's just absurd to complain about things that we always knew would happen as though they're some sort of great surprise.

If we cared about preventing LLMs from being used for violence, we would have poured more than a tiny fraction our resources into safety/alignment research. We did not. Ergo, we don't care, we just want people to think we care.

I don't have any real issue with using LLMs for military purposes. It was always going to happen.

This is literally the only thing that matters in this debate. Everything else is useless hand-wringing from people who don't want to be associated with the negative externalities of their work.

The second that this tech was developed it became literally impossible to stop this from happening. It was a totally foreseeable consequence, but the researchers involved didn't care because they wanted to be successful and figured they could just try to blame others for the consequences of their actions.

It's very common. Kind of fascinating that you've never seen it.