no thanks, we don't need the next thierry to have an expanded fief to "regulate". if anything, canada should model itself closer to the states with more personal freedoms and less regulation. there is a lot of land and resources to develop, the politicians need to just stop trying to maintain the status quo and aggressively try to develop all the land we have. the idea that we can't is a loser's mentality.
Your malevolent childs-ego-inflated-to-national 'winners vs losers' notion will inevitably, if not expunged, make losers of us all. My 'us' is of course unimaginable to your minuscule 'me'.
Someone once said something to the effect: "I'm not concerned that computers will become more like people, I am that people will learn to 'think' like computers".
A fortiori humans vs social media. You are faux-thinking in a series of tweets.
If this comment thread dropped to the level of twitter somewhere, it's the second level comment ("malevolent child"). I'm not sure what sort of vrai-thinking response you expect to that.
You're quite capable of seeing that a serious of ludicrously generalised ideological statements, entirely abstracted from reality, are as close to meaningless as human statements get (which is exactly why social media affords them). You are just blinkered by acculturation, and prefer it that why. Drama is so much more fun than reality.
All of the statements are fact, they are not meaningless.
> the EU is stagnating
True. Verifiable. Compare the value of the EU vs the US's or China's tech industry over time. The US's is now worth 20x the EU's.
A region's technological prowess lagging behind or even declining vs its peers is the very definition of stagnation.
> and definitely losing on the global stage.
The EU has a declining share of global GDP is increasingly becoming a less valuable market as companies opt to simply not deploy new products to the region.
> It has totally suffocated itself with regulation
Also correct. You can talk to essentially any EU small businessman - or even any of the (very few) AI companies in the EU. Mistral - the EU's most promising AI company - has been practically killed by the EU AI Act.
This isn't a hot take, nor is it overly general; the EU's regulatory industrial complex is a well-recognized problem.
> and is fading into irrelevancy with every passing day; soon, it won't be much more than a tourist spot for everyone else.
With the EU economy declining, and its share of global economic activity declining, and the EU preemptively locking itself out of a AI market worth trillions - one of the only major areas the EU remains strong is tourism.
> And they've gaslit themselves into thinking everything is fine, but no sane country would look at it as a model worth emulating.
References the common discourse from EU regulators where they pat themselves on the back for passing terrible regulation - e.g. passing the AI act and severely disadvantaging one of their best companies. Indeed, no one would want to emulate this.
These are just examples. Generalized statements are used because tens of examples can be provided for each example. It is more succinct to communicate the generalized example, with an understanding that anyone keeping up to date with events in this space (EU regulation, progress, technology) will understand what is being referred to.
this is a dumb feature, you should judge an image by your perception of it, not how it was created (ie machine or human made).
the anti ai-generated image crowd is a loud minority, they won't matter in the long term and spending dev time on this is questionable decision making at best.
now if you're a forensics company or that is the angle, then yeah it could be an interesting tool to have, might be even more profitable than this custom search as a service thing (obsoleted already by llm tech).
Should I? If I want to see what something looks like, I want a photograph of it, not some half-confabulated garbage. Sure photos can be over-the-top edited and retouched, but at least they have a reasonable starting point. AI images don't; they have a tenuous connection to reality at best, especially if I care about little details.
Similarly, there is a definite qualitative difference between some actual hand-drawn art and something entirely generated by a model. It's a pretty obvious distinction and it's more than reasonable for people to care about it.
Not to mention how much AI-generated imagery is absolutely tasteless slop. That certainly describes the obvious AI examples in the article! If all the filtering feature does is block those—and, unfortunately, it probably can't do more than that—it would still be really great. Even without AI we were already beset by visual garbage; AI has only made it easier to generate it; having some way to even partially filter it out is the least we should aim for.
I agree that the source of an image often doesn't matter. But while it's completely _possible_ to make high quality images with AI that match almost any style you want, the current _reality_ is that most AI generated images are slop with an obvious "AI" feel to them, that most people are often not looking for. If I can get rid of those in an automated way, that saves me a _bunch_ of manual decisions, and makes finding what I'm looking for easier and faster.
This reminds me a bit of the XKCD about filtering chat comments comic. If you have an "AI slop" filter that hits false positives on poorly designed real images and has false negatives on high quality AI images, isn't that overall not just a positive, but potentially a better positive than a filter that perfectly filters AI with no false negatives or false positives?
Not if you care about either the human effort that went into something—which, even if you don't care about anything "fuzzy", is still a costly signal in the economic sense!—or if you care about finding images that are representative of reality. Having a magical oracle that can filter out even really "good" AI imagery would be useful and, critically, would let us do something that is otherwise difficult.
Do people ever pay for the effort or only the result? Results that cost more effort are something they are willing to pay more for, but the effort itself is not something I've seen directly valued. Some will say they do, but I don't really remember seeing people actually paying more for same or less quality/results just because they took more effort.
It depends on what you're looking for. If I want a photo of a place I'm thinking of visiting, or a wild animal I'm trying to identify- I want to make sure it's a photo of the actual thing, and not a photorealistic AI artwork tagged with that name that may or may not have anything to do with the real thing.
I'm not anti AI but usually when I do an image search, I'm looking for photos of the real world, not artwork (from humans or AI)- and AI is getting so good I can't visually tell them apart.
It is very cumbersome to look at individual images in the search for e.g. reference images just to sort out the garbage. Using AI images for that would defeat the purpose. Not just because of the fact that training AI with AI output degrades the model, indicating it's a net negative on average.
It's not a dumb feature, this is what I wished for less than a week ago when using Google. I don't want my time wasted from judging AI images based on perception, I don't even want to perceive them.
> you should judge an image by your perception of it, not how it was created
Maybe when it comes to art, but not when it comes to anything else. If I want to know what something looks like in reality, AI results won't be of use.
sure, let's hear it from the "head of engineering" of an academic club with "9-12" intern level devs who has barely 2y of experience as a dev himself what he thinks about the industry. i mean it's fine to have an opinion and not particularly hating on the guy, but why is it given any credence and making the front page? are people this afraid?
llms are a tool, if you can't make it work for you or learn from using them, sorry but it's just a skill/motivation issue. if the interns are making dumb mistakes, then you need to guide them better and chop up the task into smaller segments, contextualize it for them as needed.
they should prove damages before setting fines like this.
the american gov is spending billions upon billions to defend the eu and they have the gall to nitpick & set 7 to 9 fig fines using %revenue (extortion) on their companies, which are btw providing valuable services (for free) to eu citizens. beyond ridiculous, especially with no sensible cap on the fines.
all the gdpr has done is make the web more miserable, someone from the usgov should give a call to the data protection office or wtv to remind them of their actual importance in the grand scheme of things.
and this is ignoring the damage they're doing to their own tech ecosystem with this over-regulation.
The profit Meta et al make just appears out of thin air. It's so kind of these companies to use the income they get from their money trees to altruistically provide free services to anyone.
Jokes aside: The cost may be hidden, but you're still the one who pays.
> all the gdpr has done is make the web more miserable
For those in the US? Perhaps, at least if we only look at the direct impact.
In the EU it made all sorts of privacy abuse that's completely standard and accepted in the US (credit agencies, payroll companies, etc. etc. sharing all sorts of information with anyone who asks/pays in addition to online tracking) legally impossible.
meaningless stat in the grand scheme of things. eventually, it will all transition to nuclear/solar. the question is does it move the needle in a meaningful way right now. so much hand wringing about carbon emissions only for germany to end up burning coal again.
Germany meme is nice, but it is probably just a dent in global coal use that breaks new record almost every year. Transition to nuclear/solar is still fantasy.
she deservedly got the boot, along with the other that had no business sitting on the board of a tech company on the frontier. this is just sour grapes after the coup failed.
the ai safety apparatchiks huffing and puffing about an ai takeover are nothing but status grifters and hopefully all the rest follow leike to anthropic so we can forge ahead faster without having to pay lip service to how much we're doing for "superalignment".
and thank fuck sam released chatgpt. if it were up to the apparatchiks, we'd have them sitting on it like the geniuses at google who couldn't figure out they had a gold mine under them even if you pointed it to them with a thousand spotlights.
encouraging drug usage leads to societal deterioration by the very fact that these substances degrade the brain, so the person that is using them. it should have never been decriminalized.
