itsnotlupus
Thus solving the ethical issue forever.
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.
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.
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.
With the Vision Pro, Apple is going to let us become the prettiest gargoyle at the ball.
Monetizing data acquired through scraping could run afoul of copyrights, so the love letters would probably only arrive once OP attempts monetization.
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.
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).
Imagine getting blacklisted by ransomware gangs for being an untrustworthy company.
NewPipe (Lightweight YouTube frontend) - https://f-droid.org/app/org.schabi.newpipe
I think the logical next step is to give them the same password and see how bad my foot hurts afterwsrd.
Probably difficult to exploit that way without first finding another bug to retrieve that token from a random origin.
More than that though, AML/KYC and any other checks deemed necessary can occur at almost every point of contact with fiat currencies.
However, at no point did I blame anybody. Everybody here probably has very good reasons for doing what they do. The parent comment asked "what part of the above portions of copy fail to convey what Guix is?", and rather than equivocating around that profound mystery, I answered truthfully.
It's however perfectly acceptable to dismiss me and my comment and assert that there is nothing wrong with that website copy. For example, it may be doing a great job of self-selecting and separating the enlightened from the casuals.
As for me, I had to keep reading until I saw "Linux" to go "oh ok, it's a Linux distro and they're being a little weird about it because it's GNU/Linux, nevermind it's GNU. It's just GNU."
They mentioned the attack can work with roughly a week worth of unprivileged runtime, as long as the ECC mode of the ram chips in the targeted system has been previously sufficiently reverse engineered.
Is that too alarmist? To me, it sounds like something perhaps too cumbersome for casual drive by attacks, but it seems right down the alley of so called "persistent threats", or whatever it is we call those guys nowadays.
I'm guessing those kind of approaches have largely gone away, being replaced with signatures that are hopefully fuzzier than a wholesale cryptographic hash, but still essentially only catching things after the fact, which works well with subscription business models.
But of course sustained rapid user growth without a robust preexisting scalability approach means you're caught with your pants down, and it's a struggle to put them back up, at least until new user traffic starts to die down.