It in fact would, because there would be no incentive to keep it like it is - it would never have been made so bad if it was a democratic decision.

Facebook and Co. is bad today because there’s a conflict of interest between users and shareholders, and Zuckerberg chose the shareholders cause they line his pockets. This conflict would not exist if it was democratic.

deeply antisocial

It doesn’t really have to be. The problem is that the profits that comes from that machine are not spread among the working people - that would be the social way to implement it.

Someone on Twitter is saying that the username for the fridges was “admin” and that the password was the current date… Prime security in effect here, clearly /s

I think you’re conflating consciousness and intelligence. I think you could theoretically have an artificial general intelligence on the same level of intelligence as a human, or even beyond, but with zero consciousness. We know that intelligence does not follow consciousness (unless you believe a fish or a cow is not conscious). Why should consciousness follow intelligence?

You should start a community for those games. Or contribute to an existing one. Be the change

Scenarios in gambling are rarely “purely random”. I.e. the likelyhood of winning in poker depends on what you already got dealt and what other cards got dealt and so on. What does “purely random” even mean? Like a lottery with equal chance of winning for all participants? Yea that’s gambling but just one kind of gambling.

Which model are you using? My experience is that it can definitely do “standard boilerplate”. What programming language are you using?

It’s clearly a controversial thing to say on the fediverse, but everyone must realize that AI is another tool - a sometimes faulty, sometimes great tool. A professional can use it well, a careless person can use it carelessly. But it is a tool that can help in certain cases. It’s a nuanced thing, which many people unfortunately have trouble accepting. It has flaws, yes. It also has benefits. This shouldn’t be controversial to say.

That of course doesn’t guarantee that providing that tool must be profitable. It may well be that providing AI models is just too expensive to actually make sense, at least as it is right now.

I switched from Google (email, cloud storage, etc.) to Infomaniak in august last year. It was european, got more cloud storage for less money and though the user experience wasn’t 100% polished, it was basically 90% there. Good enough.

I couldn’t be happier with my choice now - this seems like a really good move. This looks like a similar sort of setup as Mozilla the for-profit company has with the non-profit Mozilla Foundation. Good on the founder for doing this!

I don’t get it, why are they worried about people making firearms using a 3D printer? I might be wrong, but isn’t it fairly easy to acquire a real firearm in the US? So why would anyone use a 3D printed one?

15 was minimum for me too (I’m in Denmark) a few days ago, but now it’s 0. They’re probably rolling out gradually, just check again in a few days and make sure the app is updated.

I had 15 mins at the lowest setting a few days ago too. Now it’s 0. I think it’s rolling out gradually, just check it again in a week or so.

Nice

I generally agree, but I kind of wonder whether something like an advanced LLM has a place as a component of an artificial “brain”. We have a language-focused area in our brain, but we have lots of other components of the brain that does all kinds of other things too. Perhaps we’re “just” missing those other things.

I think you’re conflating intelligence and consciousness. Pain and suffering requires consciousness but intelligence does not imply pain or suffering or happiness. LLMs are already “intelligent” to a certain degree in some aspects, though not generally intelligent like humans. But there is no reason to believe that you couldn’t have a generally intelligent artificial agent that lacks consciousness and thus can feel no pain or suffering.

That’s true, but that doesn’t contradict the above comment. Unless you believe in something like a spirit or soul, you must concede that human intelligence ultimately arises from physical matter (whatever your model of physics is). From what we know of science right now, there are no direct reasons for thinking that true intelligence or even consciousness is limited to biological organisms based on carbon and could not arise in silicon.

Last summer, Meta scored a key victory in this case, as the court concluded that using pirated books to train its Llama LLM qualified as fair use, based on the arguments presented in this case.

This is so fucked. It’s literally legal for an AI to read pirated books to learn, but humans are not allowed to do this. AIs have more rights than we do already.

Law itself

purely legal conformation standpoint

It’s still stupid even if it’s required by law.

I really don’t like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime

I’m sorry to break it to you, but this has been illegal for a long time and it doesn’t need to have anything to do with CSAM.

For instance, drawing certain copyrighted material in certain contexts can be illegal.

To go even further, numbers and maths can be illegal in the right circumstances. For instance, it may be illegal where you live to break the encryption of a certain file, depending on the file and encryption in question (e.g. DRM on copyrighted material). “Breaking the encryption of a file” essentially translates to “doing maths on a number” when you boil it down. That’s how you can end up with the concept of illegal numbers.