zucker42

Ilya's talking about type 4.

If I had to bet money on it, researchers at top labs have already tried applying search to existing models. The idea to do so is pretty obvious. I don't think it's the one key insight to achieve AGI as the author claims.

The main thing I'd be worried about in the short term is models making accessible the information to synthesize a pandemic capable virus.

Exactly. If the board had the reasons in this article ready to go when they fired Altman, things may have gone much differently.

I agree that the board overestimated their own power, and underestimated the need to get their business partners on board with Altman's firing. However, I think calling Microsoft the board's boss implies that Microsoft has some sort of moral or legal high ground.

One way this debacle has been portrayed in the media is "an unaccountable board tried to destroy a profitable company". I think a more accurate portrayal is "Sam Altman and Microsoft worked together to deemphasize the company's scientific and humanitarian goals and emphasize building successful and profitable products". It's sort of depressing how Microsoft was able to "capture" a nonprofit.

Major investors aren't the board's boss in this case because OpenAI is a nonprofit. Microsoft is incentivized to act against the goals nonprofit's charter (and in fact they did in this case).

That was definitely part of it.

> "it's Nintendo's own fault for not releasing their games on PC and Android"

I understand if you disagree with this argument (I don't know if I'd endorse it wholeheartedly), but I don't see how it is asinine. The wider context here is that there are people who believe in "general computing", i.e. the idea that users should retain full control over computing devices and software they buy.

The philosophy of companies of companies like Nintendo is that when you buy a game from them, you are buying the right to play the game in exactly the way they want. If they could make modding illegal, they would (it is in Japan, to my understanding). This runs counter to the idea of general computing, where you should be to play a game you buy in any way you want, including modding, or playing on a different device, etc.

So to return to the point, the argument is that by refusing to sell their games to users of other platforms (as well as their other actions), Nintendo is working against the goal of general computing, and therefore it's not worth feeling sorry for them when people pirate the game. Phrased differently, people who don't own a Switch have no way to play the game besides pirating, and people should be able to buy games separately from devices.

Another fundamental argument here is that hardware/software walled gardens which are enforced by anti-circumvention and copyright laws are basically anti-competitive monopolies.

A more accurate rewording of Nintendo's statement (keeping their point of view):

> A video emulator is piece of software that allows a user to run a video game on a platform different from that for which is was written. Many people use emulators to play unlawfully obtained pirated games.

Wording something as definition implies that the statement both contains no falsehoods and is complete.

Saying that the purpose of an emulator is to play pirated games is not true. I use an emulator to play Super Smash Bros Melee on my computer, with the ROM obtained from the disk I own. People have modded the Super Smash Bros Melee game to allow for online play, something that would be impossible without an emulator. People used emulators to find a bug in Ocarina of Time that would allow them to beat the game (played on original hardware) faster.

But the statement is written to confuse a non-technical fact finder into thinking that the only purpose of an emulator is to play a video game without paying for it, or to help others to do so. And it's done so because that Nintendo doesn't believe that you own the game you buy from it.

Hammers are used for theft, as well. Even if Nintendo's business would benefit from emulators not existing[1], it doesn't mean we should ban emulators (or create laws which allow multinationals to sue open source emulator projects out of existence).

[1] which is not necessarily true

The yearly odds of a "Bond villian" becoming U.S. president seem a lot higher than the risk of a catastrophic asteroid to me.

> Who is saying that?

There is a quote in the top level comment of this thread that says that.

> It’s untenable that there’s unsanctioned client software for a messaging platform for which privacy and security are a primary feature.

I think plenty of people (myself among them), have used Nouveau without issues.