I saw Eli Computer Guy on YT yesterday describing how “you don’t allow the intern full access/permissions/privileges to delete the production database”. Swap “AI” for “intern” in the marketing material and the real culprit is clear - it’s the person who left the door open without any foresight or common sense. You can’t blame the intern.
It’s a literal $50b pay day for OpenAI (and the sole motivation for why they keep announcing it, attempt to change what it means, or try to claim it has been reached)
Fictions? It’s easy to make a mistake isn’t it. We could all be victims in the right circumstances. We can feel compassion and demand more severe punishments for banks that facilitate it (like in my industry) where everyone in the chain has to give the money back and/or give up the id of the party they gave the money to until a culprit is exposed - the victims bank refunds the victim, the bank the money was transferred to returns it to the victims bank, and so on. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Gross. I see what you mean - has to be bait
Thank you for the translations. My mind still boggles. Is it accurate to sum this up as…
“Willow (human) received a thread of messages from their partner (human) who is dehumanising them by referring to them as a bot / claiming to be having a separate relationship with a bot that they created (based on Willows attributes) while intimating that Willow is also in a relationship with someone/something else?”
Check OP post / comment history - it’s a rage/troll/weird account. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was deliberately trying to make any/all AI scepticism look infantile and fanatical.
This is a very long video with a shitty title. The covered words are probably “How to [talk about] a Data Center”. I was expecting clear instructions on how to actually ████ a Data Center, but alas no joy.
The last couple of lines has me thinking this is satirical/sarcasm:
“…Following his embarrassing slip-up in February, Sutter vowed that he works “differently now” and is ready to immediately “distrust” anything an AI says” and “…when we pasted his latest piece for Nautilus into AI detecting tool Pangram — which is far from perfect — it informed us that 56 percent of the text appeared to be written by an AI”.
Yeah, but: AI is important and valuable to millions of people… But only as a search engine. And only because Google ruined their own web search engine on purpose. Governments are making AI data centres part of national infrastructure (like rail or roads) when we should have forced Google to do the right thing with similar laws and protections against the enhshitefication of it. Give us back a good Google, and the use case for AI disappears (along with the threat of humanity destruction) overnight.