By "loss of trust", I meant that this is something they would risk losing a lot of users over, which isn't the case with the other lawsuits. There is a massive distinction between fighting third parties in a legal grey area and committing blatant fraud against your own users. Even if you have no regards for ethics, intentionally shipping a noop "do not train" toggle offers negligible upside for a massive downside.
How did the industrial revolution relate to copyright? Seems related to patents instead.
In the context of copyright we are talking about books in that century. Shakespeare predates copyright. Though, we are not only talking fiction, but also non-fiction. It's no coincidence that British inventors of that time were on to wealthy side, for the poor people couldn't afford to buy a whole lot of books. And neither did they write them.
It's not enough to invent (and patent) something. You also need to document it in various ways - so people know the invented thing exists, what it's for, how to use it, how to fix it, etc.
> poor people couldn't afford to buy a whole lot of books. And neither did they write them.
Thus the rise of circulating libraries in the 18th century, and the public (lending) library system in the 19th century. Especially after the establishment of mandatory education for children.
The industrial revolution and the British empire are both extremely clear proof that Britain was in no way 'crippled'. Particularly not in the world of knowledge, given the countless inventions involved.
If the creation of copyright was so harmful to the nation, why was there no harm?
I know this is a popular take on HN, but it's very much one that collapses the moment you think about it. Abolishing copyright would only enable the large corporations further.
Mandating that creators lose control and the ability to profit from their work almost immediately will absolutely not encourage the production of new works.
This is groundless speculation; if you're going to go that far off the map, then we don't need to worry because a good AI (blue eyes not red) will have learnt to love by then and will save us.
There is currently no reason to believe that such a superintelligence is likely or would have any of the powers people claim.
There's no logic here already; the principle you should be applying is Hitchen's razor[1].
There is no reason to assume that super intelligent evil AI with magic powers will appear; while we are purely in the realm of (hackneyed) fantasy, why stop at imagining just one thing? You can build the whole story, not just the basilisk.
The parent comment is a story, not a prediction; it should be treated like one.
>This is groundless speculation; if you're going to go that far off the map, then we don't need to worry because a good AI (blue eyes not red) will have learnt to love by then and will save us.
By shutting down open-weight models? Why not just do it now then?
Playing chess, writing code, finding security bugs, and proving mathematical theorems all seem fairly similar to thinking and don't seem much like being tall.
> writing code, finding security bugs, and proving mathematical theorems
While the second can be automated as in "this is the repo go on and look for security issues", the first one and especially the last one do not ever happen alone. Terence Tao did the math proof not chatGPT that was just used as a tool, a tool can do smart things but it's not smart
The crucial distinction here is that "seem" does not at all mean the same thing as "is".
Thunder seems like the anger of the gods but it isn't. We've had chess playing programs for a long time now and despite it seeming like thinking is required for them, it isn't.
The principle you're using here isn't a scientific one but magical [1]. Abandoning empiricism and rationality is not a good way to make progress.
You're insisting on a particular definition of a vague term.
It makes sense now to say that temperature is what a thermometer measures. However, before there were good thermometers, people often thought that heat and cold were different things. The meanings of the words we use were influenced by scientific progress.
For thinking, we don't have a good thermometer. There are IQ tests, but they aren't aren't necessarily all that useful for comparing what people do to what machines do. And that's why there are a zillion AI benchmarks - none are entirely satisfactory.
So what does "smart" mean to you? How do you define it in practical sense? What definition should scientists settle on?
Without a proper definition, how do you tell the difference between "seems smart" and "is smart?"
People in the past being wrong doesn't mean you have to repeat the same mistakes, and it definitely doesn't mean you should throw your hands up and declare that all similar things must be identical.
Quibbling over commonly-understood definitions is not a strong argument. If you're genuinely struggling to understand that El Ajedrecista [1] did not meet any definition of thought, then the solution is not to demand that people redefine all terms to accomodate you, but that you consult a dictionary.
You clearly have a working definition, or you wouldn't have been able to declare that tallness isn't thinking; please engage honestly.
I have a vague understanding, enough to know that tallness isn't thinking. I think I can usually use the word correctly. (I don't think El Ajedrecista qualifies, but it was starting to play chess, so it's closer to "smart" than a rock is.)
That doesn't mean I know whether "smart" should be applied to what AI's do, and I suspect nobody else knows either. This is the sort of thing philosophers debate about, not common sense.
Turing invented the imitation game because he didn't really know either.
reply