mrdependable

This guy knows he is full of shit.

I wish I could be excited about Waymos, but knowing how these things go, I have a strong feeling this will turn into something dystopian. My guess is a future where cars are much more expensive and you never get to actually own them. Couldn’t we just invest in better public transit and make it harder to get and keep a drivers license?

My computer in the 90s used to take 30 minutes to boot. Now we complain about 10 second load times. What a world.

Imagine you use Claude to write a paper for school and you turn it in. The teacher asks, “You wrote this?” You reply, “Yes, I used Claude to generate it for me.” The teacher replies, “So, Claude wrote it.”

“No, teacher. Claude is just a tool. I wrote that.”

Many people in these comments will apparently agree with the student.

There is unspoken context that people assume when conversing with each other. AI has made assuming that context dangerous. People who want to play semantics to mislead others are obviously lying. Those who acknowledge that extra context is needed now are not.

By that logic, Elon Musk built a rocket and his tools were all the employees. It really depends what the person is taking credit for exactly.

Is that meant to say you are willing to ignore what Amazon is doing because their shipping is convenient?

I am about to try using it as the last step in an email spam filter.

Good way to keep metrics and prove work is happening would be my guess.

My guess is we will be streaming everything in the future with whatever crap hardware they let us buy.

Reading that section and the linked essay was kind of depressing. It reads like the most important part about the AI apocalypse is who called it first.

There are many more narratives about the future of AI than that. I just saw a talk stipulating that AI is a reaction to populism by the class of capital holders. They say it is going to be used as a way for them to hold onto their wealth; hence the mass surveillance we see now.

I personally think it is still too early to tell. We are basically sitting on the edge of a pool dipping our toes in the water, waiting to jump in. Whatever predictions people make about it now, they are ignoring all the inevitable twists and turns that are bound to happen in the coming years.

Will take years to make productive if anyone is even willing to invest in it.

That is not binding, hence the NYT trial.

That is not what the text you quoted is saying. It says that the output may be transformative, which is one criteria, but the other criteria depends on how it is used and what the source is.

That is one of the ways they determine fair use, whether it will affect the market for the work.