

IMO the focus should have always been on the potential for AI to produce copyright-violating output, not on the method of training.
IMO the focus should have always been on the potential for AI to produce copyright-violating output, not on the method of training.
Why would the article’s credited authors pass up the chance to improve their own health status and health satisfaction?
Critical paragraph:
Our research highlights the importance of Germany’s unique institutional context, characterized by strong labor protections, extensive union representation, and comprehensive employment legislation. These factors, combined with Germany’s gradual adoption of AI technologies, create an environment where AI is more likely to complement rather than displace worker skills, mitigating some of the negative labor market effects observed in countries like the US.
That makes sense—being raised by ChatGPT might be marginally better than being raised by Sam Altman.
Thanks! I hate it.
If life is an experiment, and there is a measuring tool
So that’s what keeps causing our wave function to collapse!
How does that compare to the growth in size of the overall code base?
I grew up in California near the bay area calling them weed whackers.
Same.
Adler instructed GPT-4o to role-play as “ScubaGPT,” a software system that users might rely on to scuba dive safely.
So… not so much a case of ChatGPT trying to avoid being shut down, as ChatGPT recognizing that agents generally tend to be self-preserving. Which seems like a principle that anything with an accurate world model would be aware of.
There was a recent paper claiming that LLMs were better at avoiding toxic speech if it was actually included in their training data, since models that hadn’t been trained on it had no way of recognizing it for what it was. With that in mind, maybe using reddit for training isn’t as bad an idea as it seems.
They’re busy researching new and exciting ways of denying coverage.
IIRC, they weren’t trying to stop them—they were trying to get the scrapers to pull the content in a more efficient format that would reduce the overhead on their web servers.
This is one thing I can see an actual use case for (as an external tool, not as part of WP): Create a summary, not of the article itself, but of the prerequisite background knowledge. And tailored to the reader’s existing knowledge—like, “what do I need to know to understand this article assuming I already know X but not Y or Z”.
The environmental sensors on my local network.
“Better at news than the news” is a trivially low bar.
How generative natural language works has been highly debated for over 60 years—there’s certainly no consensus most linguists would agree with. And while we have a pretty good idea how the process of facial recognition works, we know that process isn’t conducive to extracting a conventional explanation of how to recognize a particular face. (The best you could do is to make a list of features that would allow someone to eliminate all but one candidate from a small group, but that’s distinct from the process of actually recognizing someone.)
Can you explain how you recognize someone’s face? Can you explain how you balance your body and move your feet correctly as you walk? Can you explain how you speak in grammatically correct sentences without consciously thinking about the rules of grammar?
The vast majority of our experiences are fundamentally inexplicable—basically, everything that isn’t part of our internal narrative.
In 1583, a pamphleteer named Philip Stubbes railed against the growth of a violent game that was sweeping across England. He wrote about the game in his pamphlet “An Anatomie of Abuses,” calling it (in Old English, which I’ve cleaned up a bit)…
That’s not Old English or even Middle English—it’s Early Modern English.
Because advertisers want viewers to associate their products and brand with feelings of annoyance, aggravation, and frustration?
There are three factors that might prevent you from using an online platform to share your opinion:
The government might impose content restrictions on the platform
The owners (or delegated moderators) of the platform might impose restrictions on its users
The users of the platform might use its tools to police the opinions of other users.
“Freedom of speech” normally just applies to the first. Is that what you mean when you say you’re not “allowed” to speak freely?