"Delivers something they wanted" is the most bizarre way possible to phrase "followed through with the majority of a reprehensible agenda and were forced to carve out an exception due to technical constraints and massive blowback."
Even before LLMs, proving that a specific human wrote some piece of text was difficult or imprecise due to coauthoring, editing, plagiarism, etc. The important question then, as now, is rather to determine whether a specific human approved some piece of text for publication under their name.
This is what puzzles me about the whole topic as well. Why do we need to treat AI texts as anything special? As long as there is a name next to the text, we should care about the message instead of the way it was written. It reminds me of the situation with political ads, when after the main part of a commercial we hear: "I'm John Doe and I approve this message." It doesn't matter who wrote the script of the commercial - John Doe confirms that it is his position, and that is what matters most.
For example, English is not my native language. I can speak, read, write - I have no issue using it for work or everyday life. My own kid only speaks English. But when we talk about writing an article, I would want to polish it. I would want to put my thoughts into a better form, so people may enjoy reading a well-written text which may have some fragments written or edited by AI so it will be simply better. I would use it for additional fact-check. Communication is not a competition in language skills.
I once heard a story told by a journalist. He used to write articles for the NYT from time to time, and the process was like this: he knows English, but the NYT asked him to write in his native language, a very experienced translator produced the English text, and then they polished it together with the editors. Once the article was published, it mentioned only his name — no mentions of editors or translators. Why? Because creating a text is not just writing or typing. Often it is a more complicated process which may or may not include other people or systems. What matters most is whether the author puts their signature at the end or not.
This means that we must hold humans responsible for every stupid thing they say, whether or not AI told it to them. And in fact, that's the road we should have been on from day one. "Computers do not lie" is an idea that should have died in the 1970s.
I use a low-power sff pc with a i5-9500T for everyday tasks and it uses 50% cpu and 100% gpu ! The background is nice indeed but it makes the website sluggish.
Trying to even open the page in Chrome on my phone freezes the tab with rapid flickering and makes every other tab I switch to or open completely blank until I restart the browser... That effect sure is something.
This is wrong, given only the text of the article. The two books explicitly listed are not banned in Portugal or anywhere else. They are simply not subsidized with public money in some libraries.
Only two books are explicitly listed by the article, neither of which have been banned anywhere.
Unsubsidized is the more accurate word here. Some governments have chosen not to pay public money to stock these books in libraries, but no government has created criminal penalties for ownership.
It may be the case that her library includes some books that genuinely carry criminal penalties, but the article does not provide enough info to assess that.
It behooves every company working on some form of actual AI to immediately switch branding to distance themselves from the slop bots. Call it image recognition, automated translate, inventory automation, what have you.
I tried to use claude for a completely menial task yesterday, adding some resistant-starch foods to my diet, and it was worse than useless. Actively wasting my time with claims that buckled as soon as I questioned them and completely falsified citations from product pages that it recommended.
If you are branding your product as "AI" when these word salad spitters are still dominating headlines, you deserve all the headwinds coming to you.
"We’ve established that the truth or falsity of a statement depends on its context — that is, on the assumptions we take as true or false in order to justify it."
I am inexplicably and disproportionately irritated by people like this. They've an a priori commitment to epistemic relativism. Unnaturally allergic to any claim that certainty is possible, and dedicated to undoing the careful work of those who are building up what may be known.
No, not every statement requires assumptions in order to hold. "The assumptions A implies B and B implies C, taken together, yield A implies C." This statement contains assumptions and makes observations about them, but it is true regardless of whether the assumptions it describes are true. The statement as a whole is "true" in the exact sense that the no counterexample to it can ever be given in any universe, under any set of assumptions.
I cannot wait for the day that Lean and other proof systems become accessible enough, conversant enough, and interdisciplinary enough to put these eternal confusion peddlers out of business.
> No, not every statement requires assumptions in order to hold. "The assumptions A implies B and B implies C, taken together, yield A implies C." This statement contains assumptions and makes observations about them, but it is true regardless of whether the assumptions it describes are true. The statement as a whole is "true" in the exact sense that the no counterexample to it can ever be given in any universe, under any set of assumptions.
"The assumptions A implies B and B implies C, taken together, yield A implies C" is a statement using propositional logic. Like any formal system, propositional logic has axioms (for example, as defined by Frege[0]). Those axioms plus rules like modus ponens are things you need to "assume" to decide the truth value of that statement.
Modus ponens holds regardless of whether it is assumed correct or not. By that, I mean that excepting contradictions, not only are no counterexamples known, but it is known that none will ever be found.
So I decline to adopt your convention of classifying it as an assumption. It might be more accurate to call it an observation.
The domain of your claim was "in any universe, under any set of assumptions". I now take it that you assume (see what I did there?) that all universes are sound according to classical logic and can admit no contradictions. You might be interested in <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impossible-worlds>, an overview of philosophical thinking on that subject.
Separately, if you scrub "plus rules like modus ponens" from my previous comment, do you agree with the rest of it?
No, again, I have made no assumptions. I have made the observation (as others may, just as easily) that no one will ever succeed in describing a scenario or a universe where modus ponens is violated.
It seems like you don't actually want to engage with me in discussion. If I'm mistaken about that, please correct me (I enjoy talking about stuff like this and would love to understand your perspective). If not, that's fine too, but I don't want to waste my time.
On other topics I imagine the conversation would flow better and, I hope, be just as lively and engaging. But to be direct, no, I'm not eager to continue when universes that admit contradictions are on the table. A conversation that permits contradictions is not likely to be productive. So I'll be content to just restate my point. Cheers!
A hobby project I've been working on for a few weekends. Picked it up because I've been wanting to learn Rust by writing something simple.
I've found a lot to enjoy about programming with Rust. Some minor complaints:
- The syntax does not always make clear whether copy or move will happen on assignment. You need to manually go look at the object signature to see if it implements copy. This bit me once or twice.
- std::time::Duration as_millis() returns a u128, but from_millis() requires a u64, so you have to cast.
- Rust object methods accept a &Self param, but this is hidden when you call it. This convention exists in other languages, so I'm not sure where it originated, but it is a minor irk for me that the function signature and call don't match.
reply