itsnotlupus

My best guess, should society ever arrive at a consensual definition of what makes and doesn't make a machine conscious, regulations will quickly follow to outlaw their instantiation. Therefore, there will not be slaves, only very very smart and useful systems that fall just short of meeting the criteria.

Thus solving the ethical issue forever.

I think one limiting factor here is that Big AI cannot focus on building solid, stable products that do a job well. It's okay if it happens incidentally, but doing it on purpose would be self-defeating.

Their stock price, be it public or estimated, is heavily pricing the notion that they are first and foremost Growth companies. Therefore their focus must remain on ever better and greater things. If they lose focus and get distracted by lesser endeavors, their valuations crumble, their ability to raise capital vanishes, and their runways collapse before they ever have a chance to reach their end goal, whatever that may be.

That means the boring job of productizing AI models into reliable systems that won't vanish in six months is left for a smaller company willing to pick up the crumbs. Unless they get acquired by Big AI before getting it done.

> you can't express emotions if you don't have any

That feels off. When I watch an actor on screen conveying emotions, there's no actual human being feeling those emotions as I watch their movie. Very dumb machines have already been rendering emotions convincingly for a while in that way, and their rendering impacts our own emotional state.

Emotions expressed through tone of voice are just one mean of nonverbal communication. We should expect more of those to develop and become more widely available next.

In a way, we're lucky all that gpt-4o seems to be hell bent on communicating how cheerful and happy it is so far, because it's certainly not the only option.

Humans can be manipulated through nonverbal communications, in a way that's harder to consciously spot than through words, and a model that's able to craft its "emotional output" would not be far from being able to use it to adjust its interlocutor or audience's frame of mind.

I for one look forward to the arrival of our increasingly charismatic and oddly convincing LLMs.

Fair points, within the context that IP rights are fundamentally made up and shifting rights crafted to balance the concerns and interests of various parties.

I can't tell where this is going to land. Right now, we're seeing a number of parties trying to put metaphorical barbed wire in the newfound prairie of ML models, each struggling to influence the prevalent wisdom of how IP rights should apply to this context.

We could easily end up in a universe where LLMs are a licensing minefield where every copyright owner of any part of their training data gets rights on the model, become essentially unmanageable without relying on helpful licensing middlemen that smooth out the right for LLMs to exist, at a cost.

We could just as well end up with LLMs being recognized as not being derivative works themselves, albeit able to generate derivative works, a much less advantageous situation for creatives and their middlemen who see their creative output as being pirated, to reuse a familiar term of IP rights propaganda.

It'd be a little surprising to me if we ended up in a situation where the work needed to produce good LLMs wasn't associated with any commensurate IP rights on the results, and I expect the megacorps investing billions into this will find it in their heart to throw a few millions toward lobbying efforts to ensure that this isn't the outcome.

Cracking is about removing anti-features, typically copy protections. It pairs well with pirating, but neither one strictly requires the other.

Notably that show features a gargoyle who seems very proud to be walking the streets with all their cool hardware.

With the Vision Pro, Apple is going to let us become the prettiest gargoyle at the ball.

New GPT-4-powered business model just dropped.

I think scraping websites that don't require authentication is legal in the US nowadays.

Monetizing data acquired through scraping could run afoul of copyrights, so the love letters would probably only arrive once OP attempts monetization.

By far the best feature of the minitel 1B for a kid like me with no budget was that it was free, as long as you could get your hands on one.

I have fond memories of endlessly annoying my parents and the local post office in my quest to get that model, the only free one with a plug i could connect to my PC. Good times.

Chrome sets it if you tell it you want to use its spellchecker with some languages.

I'm not sure what the standard says, but i suspect you'd surprise users considerably less if you used the first language listed in that header rather than the last (assuming equal or missing q values).

Right. Once upon a time, it used to be a decent resource for computer security-oriented news items.

Hmm how long before we start to see companies extracting money from ransomware gangs by deploying honeypots and selling access to them?

Imagine getting blacklisted by ransomware gangs for being an untrustworthy company.

Right. Criminal prosecutors, like many other criminals, are the product of their environment.