IIRC the law in Australia made it illegal to not link the content. You legally are required to link to it, and pay for the privilege.

The problem is this is a law that dictates the formation of a civil contract between private entities.

If news companies want to negotiate a contract with Google and co that has Google pay them to link to their content, let them do that. However, they’ve been unsuccessful at that because they have no leverage. If they delink from Google they stop getting traffic from Google, so they actually lose revenue.

I’d agree that if Google were causing harm regulation would be appropriate. But if the website tells Google to not index them they start losing revenue strongly suggests Google is not doing harm to the website being linked, but is instead providing a mechanism for revenue.

And even if regulation were appropriate, it should not be regulation that mandates a civil contract between two private entities. It should be, “Google cannot link to news sites.” By mandating a civil contract between two private entities it gives artificial leverage to the news companies, which can give unreasonable demands and Google is forced to accept.

Again, the news companies don’t want that outcome because it causes them to lose revenue. So this is only about the news companies having their cake and eating it too.

Yeah, I was trying AI Dungeon out and it can not for the life of it make a sane story.

Yeah, I was trying AI Dungeon out and it can not for the life of it make a sane story.

I asked ChatGPT for some info. Then I asked it for links to find more about the topic. Each link it provided was bogus and did not resolve to a page.

And the stuff going on with ChatBingTana is exactly why it hadn’t been released yet.

It doesn’t do what it appears to do, and that’s more dangerous than folks expect.

As a tool I see great potential. As a replacement I do not.

Everyone will say this about their pet industry.

“Clearly my industry is harder than all the others because <reason>.”

No, your pet industry isn’t special, it will either be replaced or not like all the others.

Being a technical person, I don’t think AI is where it needs to be yet to replace practically any industries. If I’m wrong, it’s not really a problem I was going to be able to deal with anyway.

And I seem to remember protests at banks because they had lost their money. Surprising to hear there’s massive savings now after that.

It’s all about money right now. If you let the people make anything then manufacturing companies, farmers, and a whole slew of other industries will go out of business.

That has to be offset by something, which will likely be the distribution of raw materials. Imagine the “carbon guy” showing up to deliver your weeks order of carbon for the fabricator.

As mentioned elsewhere energy is a massive aspect of this, these machines will likely need a lot of energy to work. Not sure you’d be able to just plug it in to your wall socket. That will likely mean the manufacturing companies will use them first as they’d have the resources to set up the energy requirements. But the fiat may be so high that just paying people to do it is better.

LLMs aren’t capable of thought. So they can not get to AGI on their own, something else has to be done. They may help us get there, they may be a component of the final AGI, but we still need something else.

The context you’re discussing this in is within a post about being frustrated with people saying LLMs aren’t going to revolutionize the universe.

That your referring to LLMs is implied by the context of the post. The whole argument being made is that people like me are wrong because we are “downplaying” the capabilities of LLMs.

In that context you are implying that LLMs will be like the Industrial Revolution and replace our need to think.

I’m saying that claims like yours are where I find fault with that argument. LLMs may be a step on that journey, they may not, but they are definitely not going to cause the AI Revolution on their own

This is why I get frustrated with claims that LLMs are “it.” LLMs don’t think, so they can’t do this step function you’re talking about. You can’t run an LLM 24/7 and spit out new ideas, because LLMs aren’t actually thinking.

You can pair an LLM with a human and make that human more efficient. But without the human the original thought bit is missing. This is why people are saying that prompt writers are going to be valuable, because some jobs will be replaced with prompt writers.

When you have to add the human back to the mix a lot of the benefit you’re talking about goes away.

Not with particle level accuracy. You start getting into data compression limits.

There are more particles in the solar system than there are on a single planet in that solar system.

Season 3, Episode 47: I Dated a Robot

I didn’t even say it’d be a sex slave. Odd how you assume that’s where I was going with that.

It’s more like, I don’t need to get in a fight to get my partner to do the dishes. Depending on how advanced the AI gets maybe we do end up where you end up fighting with an AI partner over who does the dishes. But I imagine that we will end up in a place where you could “configure” your AI partner, which would make it far easier to get along with them. There’s no way you could do that with a human partner.

Yes that would eliminate the thrill of the chase involved in the dating scene. But I’m kind of past that now, and it sounds like a lot of people are. Not to mention the standards being set by women are such that over 30% of them won’t find a partner unless they drastically lower their expectations.

Also, if you really want, I’m sure we could “configure” the AI to not be your sex slave and not just do what you want.

Why would you bother pursuing someone and the headache that ensues if you can just push a button to make a robot do whatever you want?

You pay the taxes either way.

The real concern is probably the expectations that get set. If “the average woman considers 80% of men below average” then 30% of women won’t find a man up to her standards and will have to lower their expectations if they want a partner. If an AI is considered at least average, that lowering of expectations doesn’t occur as the AI can fill that gap.

And of course, Futurama had an entire episode on this problem.

Every city I’ve lived in that picks up compost or recycling does that for free. They only make you pay for garbage.

New to you, not new to the industry.

That’s not generating new knowledge.

You’re not going to use this to generate new solutions in software that don’t already exist.

Experts in the field aren’t claiming it’s generating new knowledge. They’re saying as you extend the size of the model interesting stuff happens. Roughly it seems they’re saying it performs better.

Or people are grasping at straws to try to explain a mechanism they don’t understand.

This is fundamental to how LLMs work. They don’t generate new knowledge.