To me this doesn't seem like a step towards those foundations, but another layer of of loss of agency. You can run "a" model locally, but you cannot make it locally (at least not for the purpose of just talking software into existence). You need to slurp up all the internet first, so to speak. And even if you could do that, you still depend on people putting new things onto the internet for you to slurp up. So is it really my software? What if it breaks or I want a new feature and AI corp nuked my account? How much did I learn during my time having it done for me?
And before anyone mentions it, I don't think the fact that I need a compiler and a manual and some example software to learn from is quite on the same level. I might be wrong but I would need some convincing.
How does any of that impact a user who just has a specific task they want to accomplish and who doesn't have a CS degree?
Is it "their" software? Sure, if it meets their needs. What if the AI changes? Who cares, I already have the software. All the what ifs are solved by taking the current code, stuffing into into any AI you like today, and getting the new version.
As a user, this all sounds like a great deal. Devs can continue wringing their hands over code quality and long term support and architecture and preferred framework, meanwhile the user who had an itch got it scratched and didn't need nor care about any of those things.
> What if the AI changes? Who cares, I already have the software. All the what ifs are solved by taking the current code, stuffing into into any AI you like today, and getting the new version.
It's just dismissing the question. If the AI changes, just use one that didn't change. If it gets 1000x more expensive, just use one that remains cheap.
Apart from the fact that without new input to learn from, things will probably stagnate in new exciting ways, on top of the stagnation, bloat and slop we worked so hard to make a culture over the last decades.
> Devs can continue wringing their hands over code quality and long term support and architecture and preferred framework
I mentioned none of those things.
> the user who had an itch got it scratched and didn't need nor care about any of those things.
And I don't care about that user when it comes to the question of my agency and autonomy. It's like people discussing how to make cats do tricks and someone going "just get a dog".
> The commander of the Einsatzkommando reported two days later:
> > The difficulties resulting from such a large scale action—in particular concerning the seizure—were overcome in Kiev by requesting the Jewish population through wall posters to move. Although only a participation of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 Jews had been expected at first, more than 30,000 Jews arrived who, until the very moment of their execution, still believed in their resettlement, thanks to an extremely clever organization.
"no prepared specialized infrastructure, just bussing them to a ravine and shooting them" ... yet "extremely clever organization", a special order posted 3 days prior, which the victims followed. How do you envision such a scenario playing out in Iran?
And why not simply show the evidence? Whoever makes the claim, unless they're lying, is basing the claim on something. So where is it?
> That tells me it's not about the music but about something they believe about generated music.
Or it's something they know, namely there being nobody at the other end.
By your logic, a love letter you get from a real person and one that was generated would be the same thing, because "only the words should matter". To me it doesn't make sense to say that about music in precisely the same sense I assume you agree it wouldn't make sense about a love letter.
> Why do you suggest that people generating music aren't listening to it?
Because it's possible, and considering the vast amounts that get generated, a mathematical certainty that it does happen. Whereas people who compose music actually hearing what they compose, or if they're deaf, they experience it some other way. That is also a certainty.
Why this push to somehow "overcome" that? Why can't generated stuff be for people who like it, and the people who don't like it say that once, and that's the end of the discussion and simply gets respected as boundaries humans set for themselves?
> Or it's something they know, namely there being nobody at the other end.
But until they were told otherwise, they did not know and did not care.
> Why this push to somehow "overcome" that? Why can't generated stuff be for people who like it, and the people who don't like it say that once, and that's the end of the discussion and simply gets respected as boundaries humans set for themselves?
I'm not sure. I think it's close-minded but I understand and can respect the feeling. What I don't respect is when people start saying that people who like this music are somehow listening to something less human or other variatations that you can see in this very thread. For some reason, we as humans care about this, though you're right, we should just be able to accept both sides.
I once worked for a guy who typed 7 + 4 into a calculator, after freezing for 1.5 secs trying to work it out in his head. It was in a "stressful" situation (not something extreme, we just were in a hurry), and I'm sure the guy could add those numbers in his head, generally... he owns his own business, after all. It took so much out of me to not move a face muscle.
This one does though. These issues are solely created by humans, so of course humans can solve them, that's not even a question. People who care need to keep speaking up and reaching out to each other, get together; and by doing so expose the people who don't care, or actively are against the general welfare of humans, like rocks on the beach when the tide recedes.
It takes so much work, so much criminal energy, so much money and campaigns, to divide people. Whereas the opposite, people getting to know each other and working together, happens "by itself" all the time, for the most banal of reasons. Just give them some time and space together; no lobbying required, no bribes or blackmail, no psy-ops; just our innate desire to live and let live.
Humans who prey on humans are sick, it's as simple as that. Humans who don't want to stand up to humans who prey on humans may not be sick, but they're not our best, that's for sure, and they must not be our gatekeepers or our compass.
People getting to know each and working together to genocide another group of people that's slightly different from them does indeed have many precedents in history.
The problem with your idea is that you see "humans" as some kind of abstract unified whole. People care about their peers far more than they do about "humans" in the abstract. When you're a powerful venture capitalist, these peers are other venture capitalists for example. Some call this "class consciousness".
> The problem with your idea is that you see "humans" as some kind of abstract unified whole.
No, I don't, which greatly goes together with that not following from anything I said. I simply care about humans that are not predators way more than predators.
Why would I care what others do or don't do, know or don't know, like or don't like, when it comes to Germans serving other right-wing extremist Germans talking points and votes on a silver platter, because they cannot be arsed to actually read and take seriously the accounts and warning of historians who lived through those times? I can't even figure what point you think you are making.
I wonder how much knowledge can be decoupled from experience, if at all.
If I read thousands of books that explain the details of another civilization in another galaxy, very thoroughly and consistently, but it it just happens to be all made up - did I gain knowledge? More importantly, does what I have in my brain now flip from being fiction to being knowledge if that civilization flipped from not existing to existing? How so, if nothing in my brain, or how I live out the rest of my life, changes in the least, if not a single atom in this galaxy changes (let's ignore that gravity has infinite reach and all that, for the sake of argument)?
If yes, how? What in your definition of knowledge makes that possible?
> If I read thousands of books that explain the details of another civilization in another galaxy, very thoroughly and consistently, but it it just happens to be all made up - did I gain knowledge?
sounds a lot like math - made up entities that very thoroughly and consistently fit together.
It's an interesting analogy you're making because... this is the lived reality of a lot of people that are interested in fictional worldbuilding / stories. And it flips to being real in the film Galaxy Quest.
They also share many underlying issues, e.g. the grand scale stealing of what humans wrote for other humans without ever consenting to a shred of this, who will make more things to steal from, or how the people who wield these things make them annoying.
Fixing 272 FF vulnerabilities, compared to the nuking of the web and everything, what someone here called invasion of the body snatchers, is like a bottle of water in exchange for boiling all oceans and making rain fall stop forever. It's that meaningless and trivial in my eyes. We would have had bug fixes anyway, we could have coded anyway. The destruction, and "just" of society and communication and thought, not even talking about the goons who make bank with this stuff, is on a whole new level, and I'd say of a new quality compared to previous iterations of mass society ratcheting up to make people smaller and more alienated. This isn't the newspaper or the radio or TV or the internet, it's all of those and then some, and the worst parts mostly it seems.
We don't need anyone with half an idea to be able to make an "indie" game (not very independent when you first need to suck up everything any human created and put on the web, honestly, this makes the greediest AAA companies look like honest workers) or a "Hollywood level movie" in 5 minutes. Nobody has time to play/watch any of that crap.
The product isn't interesting. That a human made it is, because then I can think what of it I can or can't do. If it's just some artifact shat out by the collective human creativity mushed around until the output is nice, it's just in the way. The web is on the path to become a park full of turds, and you can search for a blade of grass all day.
AI companies may have no moats, but humans will make moats. Just some areas and communities where no "AI" stuff, regardless of hair splitting, is allowed. And then we'll see how pushy the proponents get, if it's really just about some cool new tool or rather some sort of harness everybody gets herded into, with some trinkets like all the slop and yet another "app" not even the maker actually uses.
Thinking about the world and oneself isn't a repetitive chore in the way washing your clothes is.
"I doubt, therefore I think, I think, therefore I am" -- if I no longer think, what's left? Biomass? Why us then.. why not goo, or just more parking space?
Energy and awareness. Were more empty than whole and the cells that do make up an invididual are not 100% human. And all of it the periodic table of elements
And before anyone mentions it, I don't think the fact that I need a compiler and a manual and some example software to learn from is quite on the same level. I might be wrong but I would need some convincing.
reply