Woof, h/t to you.

Micropayments (not 5 cents, a 10th of a cent) are a great solution to lots of problems, like spam. Normal people never pay anything, but bots & spammers accumulate real costs.

The problem is that it costs multiples of that amount to process the charge, which is why... we don't have micropayments.

Qb5, Kc7, Qc6, Kc8, Rxb8#

The hard question is if AI will hit a wall. If AI hits a wall, some knowledge work will survive it. If AI doesn’t hit a wall, knowledge work is on borrowed time.

And that’s “all knowledge work”.

If humans will modify the code, we need human-centric code discipline.

Is that the case?

If we’re objecting that a modern compiler generates assembly that I can’t understand and modify, that’s a bad measurement.

To be clear, I’d prefer if “more respect” could still mean “zero”.

In a nutshell. 😊

This isn’t helpful because anyone paying attention knows it’s not true.

As one example, AI is super human in some areas of mathematics. How then can AI be bad at “what it does”?

Any possible economic bubble has nothing at all to do with the underlying technology.

The companies may go away, but the tech is here to stay.

I submit they are simultaneously the most innovative geniuses of our time as well as being rich morons with unearned confidence.

More.

One of Anthony Bourdain’s tips for cooking like a restaurant chef was to start with a stick of butter.

Strong recommendation for his book “Kitchen Confidential”.

Man, people are gonna people.

And the Superbowl as art: see Dave Hickey’s essay “The Heresy of Zone Defense”. Or Camille Paglia discussion of football as ritualized aesthetic combat.

Challenged to find broadcast TV that is undeniably “art”:

Nam June Paik’s “Good Morning, Mr. Orwell”. Paik used the medium of mass broadcast as a part of the artwork itself.

Never packaged and sold separately.

Drive by, here.

The maximum post is 300 characters; expecting readers to click your name to go to another screen, and then read your profile, in order to understand your max 300 character joke, feels like an argument you're unlikely to win.

It's those jerks reading in Discover mode...

It's habit. If you'd never owned hard media, it would never occur to you to "need" hard media.

Did anyone ever, watch the Superbowl or WorldCup on TV and turn away, saying "I won't watch that unless I own the media and can choose my player software?"

Fortunately, data centers will always label each rack as "AI" or "NetFlix", so at least there's that, you always know which racks to burn.

An inability to teach isn't the problem.

Harris and Buttigieg are accomplished public speakers and educators, and they haven't had success with much of the US.

"Do you remember before the Internet, people thought the cause of ignorance was the lack of access to information?

It wasn't that."

“There’s no peace in the Middle East bc Palestinians refuse to believe in the Torah. The Torah says it’s our [Jews] land. And that’s why America must always stand with Israel.”

Wow. He just came right out and said it.

He really needs to step down

This post is about data centers.

Stolen shamelessly:

"Today's challenge: be the reason someone closes this app."

What the actual fuck….

Cannot bring myself to gaf about data center discourse.

In my experience, the market for light industrial real estate doesn't need my close supervision. It tends to weather both speculative booms and nimbys just fine. Lotta other stuff to worry about.

When humans hallucinate, are those errors cognitive?

I think we need a better criterion for cognition in this argument, otherwise it's "humans cognize and LLMs don't, because humans cognize and LLMs don't".

I agree, I said that badly. What I'm trying to say is there's no requirement it be more than broadly defined, you don't call out "paragraphs 3 & 4", you just say "text generated by AI".

Which makes me believe the larger work remains copyrightable and there's no way to declare parts public domain.

Maybe we agree?
AFAIK, the decision against Anthropic was limited to piracy.

I believe if each source were bought legally, Anthropic would have won.

In other words, the training was fair use, the acquisition was the problem.

I acknowledge the point, but the obvious response is by that rule, humans aren't capable of cognition either.

In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court found as fact that Claude's outputs didn't displace demand for the books, doesn't that cover market harm?

I agree with you on Kadrey v. Meta.

www.congress.gov/crs_external...