Hard to tell people, who feel the world goes to shit, that it doesn't. When you look at statistics we are living in the Golden Age truly. Worldwide even. But people feel it's worse than ever. One of the big paradoxes of our time.
Not comparable if what was advertised performs significantly differently from 65hp (assuming beef and horse meat taste similar). And if AI-assisted writing is really at the point where it can honestly win prizes, then there's no problem here, unless the prizes in question are specifically for "wholly human-created works". No need to tell furniture shoppers if the screws in the tables were driven by traditional screwdriver or a machine-powered one.
Cat or human meat, or even soy would perform the same as beef, so why bother right? Why label things? Why bother about knowing what you consume?
> No need to tell furniture shoppers if the screws in the tables were driven by traditional screwdriver or a machine-powered one.
Why do you think hand made furnitures cost 10x more than ikea then? "BuT ItS JuSt a FuRnItUrE", I swear you slop enjoyers are either completely devoid of critical thinking or don't know anything other than bad faith arguments.
I see you building that straw man but I'll address it anyway. Did you notice my mention of taste? Cat meat is unlikely to taste like beef because they are carnivores, while cows (and horses) are herbivores. Similarly, humans are omnivores (and, tangentially, we - along with most other species - have the evolved instinct not to cannibalize each other as that's a road to extinction). I would expect cows, horses, bison, donkeys, etc to offer relatively similar eating experience and nutritional value, environmental conditions considered equal. I won't bother with soy as you should now be able to extract and apply the underlying logic yourself.
And on furniture you're going even further out from the context; you must have a lot of straw at hand. Hand-made furniture primarily costs a lot more than machine-made furniture because of the difference in human effort. Secondarily because machine-made furniture tend to look similar, and humans usually place high value on uniqueness. But, as before, you're off in the weeds building straw effigies because I wasn't talking about machine-made furniture at all. I was talking about a carpenter, etc using a traditional screwdriver (you know, the ones you have to turn the wrist to drive) vs a powered screwdriver (press a button to make it go). And the outcome of using either being indistinguishable, similar to how award was given not because the author used AI or not to write the novel (that hasn't been settled AFAIK), but because the content itself passed the award-worthy bar.
Agreed. It’s not like a particular word is any different when it’s made by ai.
Would we care if someone used a typewriter vs a computer to write it.
This looks like a weird snobbishness. The fact that it’s by Europeans makes it more funny since they have been left out of the AI race.
In the end you have a final product. Can critique it on its own. He used ai to help write it and you couldn’t tell before, says more about the product and perhaps you don’t like what it says about you .
People like to admire the author, to see a better version of themselves in the author.... If they find out that image in their head is a lie, they get angy
It's more of a way to secure the fortune. You can't "secure" the personalities of all your offspring. If one of them gets out of line it could have disastrous consequences. Keeping it in a controlled institution boxes them in.
Check out pluto, RL trained sc bw bot. Somehow it is now going rogue on the Korean ladder and flattening pros. There are some yt games by it, search for ^333^
Seems like persistent models like OpenAI's highly persistent internal model can become really effective over time. Those are the ones that drove most of the HF-OAI incident.
This training technique does not relate to how persistent a model is, at all really. They sample more parallel attempts at hard problems, to increase their chances of having at least one success to learn from.
reply