An original work is an original work. Every work is influenced somehow. Foisting AI as your own humanity is your own death. I'll die another way.

While it's true that the value of content is driven down by the signal to noise ratio, AI being noise, the fact that AI can't be copyrighted is an important distinction. Only humans can copyright, a court-tested fact.

Does that fact increase the quality of content? No. What it does mean is that humans can monetize their works and eat; AI can make content and sell you ads or influence you to buy something.

This reduces to a question: Do you want to feed humans or the AI muck? The choice is yours. Some humans probably don't deserve the feeding; the AIs are driving up all of your costs, from the power grid energy bills to the new AI trappings being foisted on you during your tech experience. You decide.

Or written off for the pure BS and hype that it actually is. Altman will say and do almost anything to get a jolt out of investors, rather than listen to how early AI users are defeated and scrambling for actual answers.

You can mod me down, but this isn't a new iPhone-level technology change, this is enslaving one's self to a cloud future where you're little more than attached to The Matrix in some slovenly way.

Tech bloggers are like print-media moguls used to be, selling ink by the barrel. In reality, Altman's selling hype, raising a flag to see who'll salute his design and help him improve it. See the balloon? See the air?

Agreed.

And the entire context of the article is incorrect, along with the concept that AI is revolutionary somehow. It's only the latest iteration of mechanization advocacy through software.

No doubt certain models can ally efforts towards quality and productivity results, but these are often highly monolithic and silos, rather than your brilliant new friend. The marketing folks, however, prefer you think of AI as unerring, useful, and safe to use. It is not.

The posted article gets almost everything wrong. What's important here is that people with apparently brilliant minds are being fooled so thoroughly, thinking that they've invented a new and interesting observation, when both the premise is wrong, as is the conclusion.

But this is a Murdoch publication, and must be discounted for inherent lack of objectivity resident in all Murdoch publications. They are uniformly hype and porn (of one kind and another).

GIGO.

We're coming for your jobs. But you need us. You don't need your job.

This is a huge hoax being sold to CEOs who "see the vision". The vision is: No employees, high rates of return, the side hustle incarnate, reaping tons of benjamins while people drink their swill in robot bars, watching robot dancers dancing to AI tunes.

The sales job on the masses is failing. Data centers will become apartment buildings with lots of spare juice and cooling.

AI is like a whiz-kid who can't tie his own shoes. The bad reputation that AI has is well-deserved. Add in the business executives that drool over lowering their labor costs and shoving employees out the door by something we're supposed to be impressed with and love. Add it to you shaky operating system that barely works on a good day and force people to go through hoops to uninstall it because it gets in their way.

This is the failure of most tech marketing, believing their own BS, then throwing actual trillions of dollars to make believers out of people when none of those dollars actually benefit humankind. This won't end well.

It's important to also view contributions against a cumulative set of bad intention, woven as iterative contributions towards a nefarious goal.

Nonetheless, some may be benign and helpful. Others may, as an aggregation, be more onerous and "bend a branch" in ways unintended by the goals of the project. This could be said of human contributions, too.

Model collapse is the problem of financiers, whose inability to curate inputs renders bad outputs, the incestuousness and robbery problem.

We agree that that they won't improve, and the majority are not compelled to help them. It's a huckster's dream, and now it's time to wake up.

It's currently all true. AI is based on the scrape of hundreds of thousands of books (the subject of much litigation), web archives, web archives of paywalled sources obtained surrepticiously, and the delta of what happens with each new scrape.

I portend that humans already write for AI, and some might get paid.

This industry is starved of common sense.

The standards are weird, and poorly implemented.

Everyone wants to monetize, rather than simply enable astute appliance and home device use.

The haptic interface, where humans use things through a human feel, is great in some places, and entirely nonsensical in others.

No one wants your stupid browser ads, we want functionality. I paid for the fridge, if you show me ads on it, I'm going to toss you.

More features, product managers, are not better. We want long life from our investments in your stuff. People revert to the KISS principle because proprietary features break and cost money-- if the parts can be found by your insane service networks at all.

Your stuff has to work in harmony with our current investments. One maestro works, not a hundred musicians trying to play different music in our homes simultaneously; there are no good or empirical home control UIs that are consistent and thoughtful.

Smart home remains, therefore, an oxymoron unless you buy it from one vendor who doesn't stop supporting their stuff/versions after just three years.

Bottom line: Vendors have done this to themselves, forcing people back to the KISS principle-- keep it simple, stupid-- and stop adding so many features. Easy. But no product manager wants to think like this.

It's new again, just like AI. Read the same post from noon. No one pays attention. Will it appear again tomorrow?

And beaconing can also provide GPS and telemetry. It's easy to battle in space, take out important satellites-- unless you have to take out thousands of them. The numeric advantage in many satellites is that there is no other country coming even close to the number of Musk-launched satellites. In war, more soldiers is an advantage.

No, hacked by Jimmy Smith, age 14, of Colorado, who is interested in shoot-em-up war games with realism. His dad's machine was connected through Comcast to his bot at the local library. /sarcasm

In reality, I hope this is just a pilot. And there are overrides. And it doesn't come with an included shock collar.

Ditto on the nonsense. Ditto on Philly.

Must be AI generated.