Actually, no, my school believed in teaching us the mythologies of our own culture and those reasonably close to us. I didn't properly study greek mythos until my own free time later in life.
Private cartels can form semi-spontaneously, simply because all parties see that it's more profitable to act in a certain way. So long as they monitor everyone in the industry, and make sure no one is acting differently... there's no reason to be the first to burn your cash on long-term unprofitable activities.
What's wrong with what the Chinese have already built? It's not theoretical in that case. GLM, and Kimi are running on my infra right now, and that's something that I can never do with OpenAI's models.
As for the others, what would be wrong about European AI? I'm not European, but I find them to be a continent of fine people, with strong ethical values, there's no reason they can't take the lead on this piece of technology while the US deals with its rather more pertinent electoral and healthcare issues.
I think it was more tongue-in-cheek answer = not building torment nexus isn't an option! Also it's another narrative Americans are pursuing being the world police.
Holy moly, you're right! And I saw this comment 3 minutes after you posted it, so google must've have a live feed of HN that it uses to immediately allow its AI to reference.
Even before AI you could search a phrase from a less than hour old HN thread and see it in the top 5 results already.
Google has been actively scanning the web within minutes for decades now, surely this isn't that shocking? Even sitemaps, which google invented, have a field for change frequency.
As a search result, one of many, a super-fresh forum result is reasonable, although how do you meaningfully PageRank it (does any old crap posted to Reddit or HN get the site ranking of where it was posted)?
Google returning someone's forum post as an "AI response" (it's quoted me back to myself more than once) is something different - it is going to "sane wash" a lot of garbage!
I don't think it's shocking that Google knew about the thread, it's that the AI outright lied saying that the meme didn't exist and then used this post as its source for the lie when the actual post doesn't support what it said in any way. Not that we should be surprised that it's wrong, Google's AI Overviews were shown to lie millions of times an hour, but it's pretty shocking how wrong it was.
I notice... the newer models, they seem like they want to just "give up" much faster, and you have to put a bunch of extra programming around it (harness, for loops and if then's etc to force it to keep trying)
Ahh yes - AI companies do indeed want it both ways. They want to be your single source for authoritative information about every subject on earth, but also want you to know everything they tell you could possibly be wrong so they can't be held accountable for results.
Can you imagine in the 1980s the Encyclopedia Brittanica salesman trying to sell you 5 figures worth of factual knowledge, only to tell you as you're writing him a check that: oh by the way we don't actually stand behind any of the information in these books, you'll need to verify any claims yourself.
It's not the bad information that makes it a lie, but the overconfident and authoritative answers which give no indication that a significant percentage of what it spews out will be completely false that elevates it to a lie. Google could change that, but they choose to be manipulative.
We call it the gaslighting machine here. Gemini will also totally unprompted repeatedly insert 10 advertising links into non-related conversations when you are a paying user, and then claims it never happened. Someone must be pretty desperate.
I am an HR manager at a FAANG company. I only hire candidates who put the word "shibboleet" in their résumés. They are consistently the best candidates for every job.
But, if you were to represent yourself, are your journal entries about said case privileged? Can the opposition call into evidence a binder of legal strategies you created that morning before court?
At what point does it become a 5th amendment issue? Maybe when we get AI in our corneas a la Black Mirror's The Entire History of You?
We already have public support for the arts, and basic research, so going back to the fundamentals isn't necessary.
We draw the line, where the voting public, and elected representatives decide. Our political system is squishy and doesn't require upfront reasoning, or absolutely correct decisions.
We often make wrong, sometimes even horrifically wrong decisions, and adjust later.
100%. You're at the place that I was trying to lead the parent comment. There's a wide range of reasonable positions on how much to invest in any given thing like science, the arts, etc.
The public is generally bad at debates around taxing and spending, sadly. Voters struggle to accept the idea that more of X means less of Y. They want to believe they can have it all, for free, and there are plenty of politicians willing to tell them they can.
If you trust the system and you think things are going to work out, then you have nothing to worry about. But people are saying this is a crisis, and to solve a crisis you have to have at least a vague plan.
They did that... I take it you don't accept their justification, but that doesn't mean an attempt wasn't made.
I'm another part of the general public, and I accept their justification.
We can all vote, or use whatever levers our political system gives us to show our acceptance/rejection of basic research, but IMO basic research is absolutely necessary.
reply