Well it is one thing to automate a repetitive task in your job, and quite another to eliminate entire professions. The latter has serious ramifications and shouldn’t be taken lightly. What you call “menial bullshit” is the entire livelihood and profession of quite a few people, speaking of taxis for one. And the means to make some extra cash for others. Also, a stepping stone for immigrants who may not have the skills or means to get better jobs but are thus able to make a living legally. And sometimes the refuge of white collar workers down on their luck. What are all these people going to do when taxi driving is relegated to robots? Will there be (less menial) alternatives? Will these offer a livable wage? Or will such people end up long-term unemployed? Will the state have enough cash to support them and help them upskill or whatever is needed to survive and prosper?

A technological utopia is a promise from the 1950s. Hasn’t been realized yet. Isn’t on the horizon anytime soon. Careful that in dreaming up utopias we don’t build dystopias.

Though I am not a lawyer by training, I have been involved in such debates personally and professionally for many years. This post is unfortunately misguided. Copyright law makes concessions for education and creativity, including criticism and satire, because we recognize the value of such activities for human development. Debates over the excesses of copyright in the digital age were specifically about humans finding the application of copyright to the internet and all things digital too restrictive for their educational, creative, and yes, also their entertainment needs. So any anti-copyright arguments back then were in the spirit specifically of protecting the average person and public-interest non-profit institutions, such as digital archives and libraries, from big copyright owners who would sue and lobby for total control over every file in their catalogue, sometimes in the process severely limiting human potential.

AI’s ingesting of text and other formats is “learning” in name only, a term borrowed by computer scientists to describe a purely computational process. It does not hold the same value socially or morally as the learning that humans require to function and progress individually and collectively.

AI is not a person (unless we get definitive proof of a conscious AI, or are willing to grant every implementation of a statistical model personhood). Also AI it is not vital to human development and as such one could argue does not need special protections or special treatment to flourish. AI is a product, even more clearly so when it is proprietary and sold as a service.

Unlike past debates over copyright, this is not about protecting the little guy or organizations with a social mission from big corporate interests. It is the opposite. It is about big corporate interests turning human knowledge and creativity into a product they can then use to sell services to - and often to replace in their jobs - the very humans whose content they have ingested.

See, the tables are now turned and it is time to realize that copyright law, for all its faults, has never been only or primarily about protecting large copyright holders. It is also about protecting your average Joe from unauthorized uses of their work. More specifically uses that may cause damage, to the copyright owner or society at large. While a very imperfect mechanism, it is there for a reason, and its application need not be the end of AI. There’s a mechanism for individual copyright owners to grant rights to specific uses: it’s called licensing and should be mandatory in my view for the development of proprietary LLMs at least.

TL;DR: AI is not human, it is a product, one that may augment some tasks productively, but is also often aimed at replacing humans in their jobs - this makes all the difference in how we should balance rights and protections in law.

Be careful with that logic, these are jobs forever lost to robots. They will eventually come for your job or the job of someone you know. Increasingly the question won’t be whether robots can do X better than humans, but whether they should.

Interesting. And shady. Though not about recording conversations.

A market agency claiming they do something of the sort isn’t proof that conversations are being monitored en masse. Security researchers can and probably have tested for this and found no clear, verifiable evidence, otherwise we would have known. Also, this stuff can be blocked at the OS level and I find it hard to imagine (esp. without solid proof) that Google or Apple would jeopardize their reputations to this extent by enabling such unauthorized listening in on users’ conversations.

Of course it’s good to keep watching this space but we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

Lusted after one as a teenager but could not afford one. It was a bit of a luxury item where I grew up.

Among the sad stories about climate scientists having to deal with misinformation and abuse on the regular, suddenly, a unicorn: a statement purportedly by Musk that I wholeheartedly agree with:

Musk wrote in January: “People on the right should see more ‘left-wing’ stuff and people on the left should see more ‘right-wing’ stuff. But you can just block it if you want to stay in an echo chamber.”

Of course with the average Xitter post becoming ever more toxic, most people that have anything of value to add will probably leave sooner or later, whether lefties or righties or whatever.

Exactly, everything was measured by how well Intel did, they were the undisputed standard bearer.

IBM went through a huge transformation. More than one probably. Most if not all giant firms have had to reinvent themselves many times over. I remember the pivot from a technology company to services and consulting, which was hugely controversial, as I got to see that relatively up close. I won’t forgive them for giving up thinkpad though.

And to think I grew up at a time when Intel reigned supreme. My my.

We need to look outside of social media. Doesn’t mean the media we consume don’t play a role in shaping opinions. The short attention spans and highly simplified messaging encouraged by endless scrolling on social media platforms play right into the hands of populists who trade in slogans, scapegoats and easy solutions. The algorithm takes care of the rest. Once you’ve expressed an interest in politically edgy content, you will be served more of that, to the point where your perception of reality will be completely shaped by that.