It worked to launch the creator into a gig at OpenAI.
Similar YOLO attitude to OpenAI's launch of modern LLMs while Google was still worrying about all the legal and safety implications. The free market does not often reward conservative responsible thinking. That's where government regulation comes in.
Taking fewer visible risks can increase your total risk. We are already under constant threat from deterioration: aging, depreciation and decay. Entropy is the default. Action is what pushes back against it.
You do not fight entropy, only move it around, and in so doing, increase it somewhere. It is still worth it to take action. We may find an action to actually reduce entropy eventually, that does not exist yet.
Sometimes I wonder if this is somehow both an answer to the fermi paradox and the increasing expansion rate of the universe. Every alien civ doing exactly this somehow.
Tons of people called for common sense regulation/guardrails years ago and were shouted down as "luddites obstructing progress." It's funny to see this discussion coming back around.
"safety considerations" don't matter. The main sticking point with LLMs is that it's a blatant theft of everyone's copyright all while letting the bosses threaten your job. Blatantly stealing to wealth transfer to the ultrawealthy.
I realized that one of my bigger issues with LLMs is actually that I worry they increase "information entropy" on average. Most tools help me reduce entropy - LLMs seem to increase it, on a global scale.
This is related to my observation that for thousands of years, written text has indicated a human author - this is no longer true, and I think this is going to be very difficult for us to wrap our human brains around fully.
Interesting take. Hadn't thought of it in terms of entropy, but it's true. Almost by definition as the training proces doesn't introduce anything novel beyond scraped inputs and a randomly initialized network. From there, the stochastic generation only adds randomness (and the prompt, of course).
there are some scientist and theorists that argue entropy production is the ultimate sign of life (Jeremy England) and consciousness (Robin Carhart-Harris, Tom Froese)
That might be the case from your position. But if you were a woman whose stalker was able to locate your photos with ease and generate deepfakes or emulate your voice to feed his obsession you might think differently. If you were worrying about your kids surviving tomorrow because an AI system might target their school for the next round it bombings then copyright infringement night not be your top concern.
> It worked to launch the creator into a gig at OpenAI
The author sold his previous software business and I'm pretty sure would never need to work anymore. I doubt "a gig at OpenAI" was high on his wish list when he started on Clawdbot.
Then why does the creator keep complaining that the maintainers he onboards keep getting poached by AI companies. It seems more like it is scaling too well.
I believe Google held back on doing a loss leader for LLMs because of shareholders. Look at how much Meta squandered on the multiiverse. If Google gave away gemini prior to OpenAI their stock would have been hit.
Cash will have relevance as long as internet and cloud failures are still an ongoing thing .. both for lovers of privacy and viable fallbacks as required.
which includes figures that show while only 8% of Australian transactions are cash (by some metric, see article) 33% (a third) of the population fully supports keeping cash on.
Similar YOLO attitude to OpenAI's launch of modern LLMs while Google was still worrying about all the legal and safety implications. The free market does not often reward conservative responsible thinking. That's where government regulation comes in.