tygon

Just need to create systems to assign priority to issues. And then systems for those systems. And...

I cannot help, but liken this to precedents such as Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California. Because of this case, therapists have a duty to warn police if a patient shows clear intent to cause harm in the future. "Duty to Protect" is definitely controversial however and there is a balance to be struck. We also know tons of kids and trolls will just "say edgy stuff to bots for the lulz" that they would not say to a human therapist as well. Where do we as a society draw a line between privacy and protection? It's not an easy question to answer.

While I in no way support habitual gambling, the second you push for something like that, you will have a sizable group of "freedom activists" up in arms. More likely, I see it being more-heavily taxed to make it less appealing.

The loopholes discussed in the article 100% should be closed, making it easier for problem gamblers that want out to get out, but there will always be the convenience factor that will cause at least some damage. Ease of access also means ease of misuse unfortunately.

Scale. In the same way every 10 year old Timmy is not being hauled into court for pirating a few Drake songs, but major piracy organizations seeding millions of songs are, litigation and enforcement does selectively target bad actors based on how big of an issue they are.

The Plague is very much still around, yes. Around the world, we get a few cases every year, but we are not in the Dark Ages. Much of the reason it caused as many deaths as it did was due to a lack of understanding. We did not know what really caused disease, we did not know ships were carrying the disease vector, we did not have proper treatments, etc. Today for the cases we have, it is a lot more treatable. We of course monitor it, so we can be prepared (close off vectors of spread like airlines, for example), but there really is nothing to worry about. Happens all the time.

> I believe we'll see a shift to more organizations building their own harnesses with model routing logic to get central control over who can use what AI and for what.

I can also see middlemen agencies coming into the picture to determine token use, best model, etc. Effectively a middleman to the LLMs that will sell token use on the popular models bundled together.

While the knee-jerk reaction is to roll one's eyes, if it gets people that would otherwise not vote to be a bit educated and go out and make their voices heard, I am all for it. Yes, this has the potential for abuse and needs to be watched closely, but is this worse than the classic "I asked my coworker and..." type of non-involvement many already have? Not really and my hope is that people will only use it as a stepping stone to more research.

> Local races are incredibly difficult to find information on

Big time. At best in more rural areas, you will find a facebook page for the candidate. Sometimes, there is nothing they put out and just maybe one of those "we interviewed the candidate and this is what they said" type sites. Sometimes, nothing at all and it is a real shame. It would solve a lot of problems if we knew more about our local school administrations, mayors, sheriffs, etc.

This sentiment gets echoed over and over. While I can certainly see the value in human-created creative works, if the subject is pure facts, there are only so many ways to state the facts without being caught in the weeds and missing your entire point.

Moreover, people are finding it hard to differentiate what is an is not AI-generated with newer models, often attributing original work with those of LLMs. It has just become an easy scapegoat for lazy comprehension and a desire to do less. You are jumping at AI boogeymen.

Just about the only thing here I can level with you on is, yes, AI is far from perfect and will continue to advance. Otherwise, so much of this reads as fruity prose to excuse apathy.

Hehe...AI was truly only ever one high school bully away from killing us all.

I chuckled a little when I read

> If you are a student, you have to let go of the idea that you first acquire skills and basic knowledge and then solve problems

and my brain instantly equated it to "we want a new graduate with 30 years of experience." You always will need to build some basis of fundamentals before you can solve problems.

You will always need some fundamental basis of understanding. You cannot bake a new kind of cake if you do not know what preheating is. I believe that is why they give the PhD example. The bulk of education comes before a PhD. You cannot start with a complex problem and be expected to solve it without acquiring knowledge beforehand.

You can feel how you wish. Few dispute one should be free to express themselves in a way that does not impact others. You can do whatever you want in your own head. It is when your views butt against others that issues inevitably arise.

Much of what we have seen in regards to guardrails on AI has been driven by government pressure (ex. NSFW material). Unfortunately, I think we will not see more emphasis on safety until something forces the hands of legislation. Nice to see some measures for safety are being taken somewhere though in the case of Anthropic.

People rarely see when something works well. They only see when it breaks. For example, security has been dramatically improved with the help of AI finding vulnerabilities, only being limited by staff actually making fixes (https://medium.com/@the_atomic_architect/ai-zero-day-vulnera...). Life is full of "silent heroes" doing things without notice. Rarely do we see giant leaps overnight. It is a slow, silent advancement invisible to most. We are also still in the "growing pains" of finding the best use cases for AI.

Many have come to the conclusion it is a tool. If you are doing proper due diligence, the AI writes while you are at the gym, but you spend a bit of time when you get back to make sure it does what it is supposed to. It is often still leagues more efficient this way, even accounting for errors. We all know coworkers that produce just as many if not more errors we have to fix anyway.

While, yes, influences of course use social media, most companies have realized having a social media presence is important today. I would be interested to see stats on how beneficial social media has been to, say, Wendy's.

For many, it is less silly cat pictures and more listing products for sale from a legitimate registered business (catering is a common one for example). Gotta do what you gotta do sometimes. If you do not take advantage of tools afforded to you, someone will and because social media like facebook is "free," that is a go-to.

Why use a bulldozer to push down a mound of dirt when you can do the same with a shovel? It is faster, easier, and less prone to giving you back pain. Even assuming you are only reading the section of the book related to your issue, a computer works a fair bit faster.

My brain immediately went to "I wonder how many people got this article and used AI to summarize it for them."

Information like this should be front-and-center. Call it malicious compliance if one wishes, but if there is one thing that is clear, Meta does not do anything (besides try and make money) without being forced to. A blanket ban on anything political does indeed mean a ban on all sides of an issue, even ones many would agree is positive.

Unfortunately, "we" is often those with the monetary means to make their voice heard.

I would hope as long as there is a demand, there will be those willing to fill it. There never would be a problem because the skill set would stick around as long as there is the need for it. At least that has been the historical trend.

We still have horse farriers for show horses or for family pets. It is a niche there for those that need it, but nowhere near as common a job as it once was. It will likely be like this. Those that like doing it will stick to it, but we will not see Indeed listing jobs for it as much. Of course with less demand, less will have the skills, so those that do have them can definitely command quite the power when they are called on for something.

This is very true. As someone with quite the experience with materials published under Penguin, Scholastic, etc. you effectively have a "dictionary attack" on the matter, rather than true "brute force," but that still leaves quite a list to compile to send to each and is easier for larger titles than smaller ones. I wonder how that leads to a bias in what materials get used for training. You are not getting many local self-published books this way.

It is almost like we need a "for use for training" agreement across the board. This would not fix the current issues (at least without substantial work), but going forward would allow for creators (or publishers/rights holders) such as this to designate a work as crawl-able for AI. A robots.txt just for Claude.

Schrodinger's Bus: You do not know if you will be hit until you are already in the street. I feel like there is some promise in naming a band this, but it is unfortunate it so often is what people have to deal with when bringing an item to market.

I wonder if we will eventually see the same drop in general knowledge we saw with manual driving (in some parts of the world), cursive handwriting, clothing repair, etc. Of course, coding was never as prevalent as these practices in the general population, so it might be harder to measure, but I feel we will definitely see it taught less in schools, harder to find resources, etc. in the coming decades, becoming more of an underground hobby.

I wonder if anyone has run the numbers on what the actual cost, both in cash and logistical headache, contacting so many copyright holders would be. That seems like quite the feat to calculate.

While it is definitely over a decade at this point (over two in fact), some of this likely comes from the term [citation needed], that originated on Wikipedia, as a cynical backhanded response to unsourced claims. It has become a catch-all. Language and how it evolves is a pretty interesting subject.

Often times, narcissism comes with a strong will and assertiveness. It is hard to be full of yourself if you cannot also project yourself. People respect that kind of assertiveness. "Clearly, if this guy is so sure of themself, they must be good..." is the mindset many fall into. Of course, this line of thinking usually does not hold up forever and the facade can eventually break down.