Your argument is effectively saying "how can lowering the quality of my product affect customers when they freely use it?".
If you use Facebook regularly, you are locked into it because unless you manage to convince your entire friend network to move to some other social media with you, you will have to "leave them behind".
I don't think the level of investment in an idea is equivalent to how impressive it may be. Most of the investment in AI is based on the idea that it will make professions and human labour obsolete, which means whoever has the reins at the moment it "solves" the "problem" of human labour will effectively reign over everyone else. The level of investment is then somewhat orthogonal to how technically impressive it is.
Not to mention that the less easily-explainable a technical achievement is, the less investment it will attract simply because fewer people will grasp the ramifications. You can describe AI in two words ("machine human") while it would take a few more to describe compilers in an instantly understandable way.
Less laconically, distros generally refer to the userland parts of the operating systems rather than the actual kernel. FreeBSD does not use the Linux kernel so calling it a distro, which typically refer specifically to Linux distros, wouldn't be accurate.
Where are you messing with userland-only options? In my experience a Linux distro not only comes with a kernel, it's almost always a kernel specific to the distro. So I don't understand that reason.
As far as Linux versus not Linux, "distro" feels fine to me for Unix systems.
Chess exists solely for the sake of the humans playing it. Even if machines solved chess, people would rather play chess against a person than a machine because it is a social activity in a way. It's like playing tennis versus a person compared to tennis against a wall.
Photographs, videos, and digital media in general, in contrast, are used for much, much more than just socializing.
Seeing as how austerity governments campaigned on reducing social benefits and achieved considerable success over the past few decades, I don't see how your solution consisting of granting people even more social benefits will ever happen. Unless there law and order is about to break down, there is no reason for the rich to leave all of that money "on the table".
This is basically a violation of the robustness principle ("be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you produce"), but I doubt there will be much improvement on this front seeing as tokens are fed back into the model. A succinct phrase is a compressed form of a longer sentence that expresses the same idea, so from the perspective of having to feed the model's output back into it, more tokens presumably work better by providing a greater of surface area for processing, so to speak. This is just my intuition, however.
That principle deserves to be violated. Invalid input is invalid. Rather than everyone everywhere trying to handle it and producing subtly different implicit extensions of whatever standard they’re nominally ingesting, everything should reject it so the producing system is forced to correct itself.
They probably don't care enough to notice the tells. I think that it's generally those ambivalent, skeptical or opposed to AI who notice, while those who wholeheartedly support AI see no reason to differentiate between it and humans and so do not even try to.
I don't think it's that simple. I'm not blanket opposed to it. I'm more along the lines of the author of the article. Use it for what it's good at, sift through unstructured info, convert information from one format to another, implement things that are planned out well with iterations and feedback, etc, and generally mapping out the capabilities.
I think those who are very opposed to AI often don't know much about the real limitations since they don't use it, and their complaints are often a year or more out of date.
I think the ideal demographic for spotting these are people who use the frontier LLMs a lot and they also have worked with text in detail, such as copywriters, people who have learned foreign languages and grammar etc., have edited articles for language and generally have a more "wordsmith" look at language and are sensitive to flow and rhythm of language on a more technical level.
The top 1% can still buy things. They can buy a lot of things, in fact. In 2024 in the US, the top 20% by income account consumed roughly the same amount as the bottom 60% (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm). This gap has widened over time (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1W5px) and will probably continue to widen even further.
reply