gwd

> Of course it is for profit. Tokens cost money. Just the energy cost alone.

That only counts if people wouldn't find some other way to spend tokens anyway. I regularly have to pace my usage to avoid hitting the weekly limit on the 20x plan; I have plenty of things I could automate.

Jeavon's Paradox means that until all possible uses are saturated, the cheaper frontier AI becomes, the more of it they can sell.

Nonetheless, they either have or do not have a legal right to assert copyright over the content that comes out of the studio. What's described in the section I quoted is only to make it possible to assert more rights than they legally have. Your argument has only changed it from "definitely assert more" to "possibly assert more".

FWIW I max out my pro max plan basically every week, not even using Fable any more. I think it's just a matter of people figuring out how to apply tokens effectively.

"Media firms are decidedly coy about their AI use, both to protect against public backlash and, more financially important, to preserve the legal basis for their copyrights."

Well since AI-generated content has no copyright, this should read, "..., to hide the prejury of asserting copyright over un-copyright-able material."

Basically, you can't just post slop and then say, "Oh, sorry, the AI did that." If the comments are too wordy, or the patch is unnecessary or poorly written or contains errors or doesn't follow the style guide, you submitted it, so that's on you. If you get in the habit of posting bad patches, people may start ignoring you.

Yes, and it's being used ironically here. The people who pointed and laughed at those who wanted "safe spaces" and overly sensitive, are overly sensitive about people not like them getting any help. "You called us snowflakes, but you're the ones who have the fragile ego."

> There's no such thing as a casual QoL update in SCADA.

> So, they don’t think about the consequences of connecting it to the Internet for remote access. It’s just a feature they want.

This is the disconnect that's so confusing.

I've always thought that employers should just put in applications with a minimum salary. The top N applications by minimum salary should get visas.

Imagine someone looking at digital camera researchers showcasing a ground-breaking new sensor, and reacting by saying "Well obviously they're completely indifferent and do not care in the slightest if their work is used by real photographers or not."

Like, "Orr... maybe they care a lot, but haven't gotten to that part yet?"

But this is Tao's point: Before, the mechanism by which a proof was verified and communicated and digested by the community was for the person who came up with the grotty, ugly first draft to engage with the community. Now there's nobody to really engage with, so the pipeline from "grotty, ugly draft" to "integrated into humanity's mathematical knowledge" has been broken.

So yeah, probably we should stop saying "X has been solved", and instead say, "A Lean proof for X (or !X) has been generated". That doesn't change the fact that incentives are currently on finding the proof, and once the proof is generated by an AI, there's not currently a good mechanism / incentive structure to move that into the mathematical community. AI is here, so we need to find a new mechanism.

> The fact that they did not do so can only mean that either (1) their agents currently lack the capability to do it, or (2) OpenAI are completely indifferent and do not care in the slightest if the proofs are understood or not.

Come now, this is kind of unreasonable. When you're working on a new technology, you first get the ugly, inconvenient-to-use prototypes functioning with the core new thing you need; then you work on packaging it up into a format useable in production. I'm sure the very first digital camera sensors weren't very useful for photographers either; but it isn't really even possible to build the rest of the technology required to turn raw output of a digital sensor into something a professional photographer can use until you have the raw output itself.

The research is still on going on the raw output; getting things to the next stage, where the results are widely useable by professional mathematicians (and then on to engineers and scientists to whom the results would be practically useful), is a whole new research area.

> The response is simple: For every message you put out, start by saying what you mean.

Sorry, I don't think this is how you're going to kill "unalive". There are already loads of people who ignore the algorithm's dictates here; you just don't see them, because of the algorithm. Sure if all the internet banded together and stopped using words like "unalive", maybe the platforms would have to change. But (prediction here) they're not going to, for two reasons.

First, the right to say "kill" rather than "unalive" isn't the hill they're going to die on. Ms Rachel and Macklemore are willing to risk their careers for Gaza's children; but most people aren't willing to risk their audience just so people can say "kill".

Secondly, people probably largely agree with what the policy is trying to do. Saying "unalive" is different than saying "kill". Violent speech on social platforms is a massive problem. The people who are most likely to act on violent speech are exactly the same people who are most likely to say "kill" rather than "unalive". Sure, there are hateful people who will say the same thing but just use "unalive" instead; but those people have demonstrated that they're aware of consequences and willing to change their behavior as a result. Such a person is far less likely to actually murder someone than someone who just uses the word "kill".

So the entire internet community switching to euphemisms is likely to make the algorithm more effective at identifying actually dangerous content. Most people are sympathetic to those goals.

Because it's not relevant. They're not charging her with conspiracy, which is what they would do if she'd actually done anything concrete towards making that happen. She didn't email it, or text it, or post it on Facebook or Twitter or Discord or a message board, which is what this law is clearly about.

> Florida Statute 836.10 makes it a second-degree felony to send, post, or transmit a written or electronic record threatening to kill or injure someone, carry out a mass shooting, or commit an act of terrorism. The communication must be made in a manner in which another person may view it.

I think Anthropic did the right thing here; but the sheriff's office are probably demonstrating why she dislikes them. Writing a diary entry to a chatbot is clearly not how this law was intended to be used.

EDIT: Actually, on reflection, making this report to the people she was upset about was probably not the right call. If they'd sent it to the FBI, there'd be a much lower chance that someone felt the need to assert their "authority".

I just have to remind it after every compaction to do work in sub-agents. The sub-agent will start a process and block, but the top-level agent you're talking to can still check on the status.