mach1ne

If you make one solution impossible, another one pops up.

That last part reads like an activation phrase for a sleeper agent

Manna v0.7

Oh, but this is interesting. If some countries stand to gain more by declaring copyrighted works "fair use" for training generative models, then other countries can either fall in line or risk falling back in technological development.

It's a race to the bottom in favor of open source.

>This was the state of affairs throughout most of the 20th century, and it set neuroscience back decades.

This doesn't seem to be based on anything.

It's not for a cool 20 minute video. It's for the collective viewing time of some 2.2 billion minutes of entertainment. There is no reason to use bootstrap-budget on the supply when the demand is this high.

It’s nonsensical to claim that to prove something you have to disprove alternate explanations. In an information environment where confirmable facts are scarse, you get the clearest vision by operating on probability. And on black-swan-tier questions the ’wisdom of the crowd’ is worthless - too much noise caused by nobody willing to advocate the black swan event, and too little prior events for the crowd to be able to calibrate itself beyond this.

Interstellar travel is possible even with the physics we know. A sub-light civilization could colonize the entirety of Milky Way in a million years or so.

The question is what the probability is for an intelligent species to evolve per solar system, and the more complex questions of how long they would survive etc. We only have a single datapoint (us) which only gives us the knowledge that intelligent life can evolve, but no direction whatsoever as to its probability.

Roswell isn't known to be anything to the general public. The public has a similar fog-of-war on Roswell as it has on the modern unidentified aerial phenomena. Therefore stigmatizing one group unfortunately stigmatizes the other group as well.

I've always found that saying dumb. It's basically stating that this is the null hypothesis, and you have to have p = 0.001 to convince me otherwise.

When dealing with complex questions of which we have but datapoints, the probability of scenario A vs B moves in a linear scale, not according to arbitrary requirements of "extraordinary evidence".

In theory, but in practice things aren’t that neat; anti-competitive practices and credibility are some items which enable bloat

True, especially regarding how easily their services can be replicated. Their margins are low, and customer acquisition does not provide them with network effects that would yield a moat.

Depends on what you mean by ’wrapper’. For most AI startups it isn’t viable to train their own models. For most customer use-cases, ChatGPT interface isn’t enough. Wrappers are currently the only logical implementation of AI to production.