Step 1) Pick something from a movie/story that is fantastical.
Step 2) Find someone with a degree that is either unethical or stupid enough to claim that it will be done 'in the future'.
Step 3) Have the reporter pick a time in the future that seems reasonable to a layman.
Step 4) Pretend you did not do any of the earlier steps.
Step 5) PROFIT!

Their description of 'uploading' says "replicating", which = a copy. If you copy a human mind, you are not being uploaded, you remain in your human body. At best they have cloned your mind into a robot. If they kill the original you, you still die - even if they do it just after the 'upload'. Do not let them copy you then murder you , even if the copy hides the fact that they murdered you. (AKA the Star Trek Transporter Problem).

If you want to move your consciousness to a computer, you need a slow and steady partial replacement of bioware with hardware. Think "Ship of Theseus" methodology with long time periods - only replacing the organic parts with inorganic parts.

That would actually let you upload. But this technology does not exist in any way shape or form. Neither the hardware nor a process to meld them with our existing bioware.

The luddites were right. Technology further stratified society. And this new technology is doing it just like the prior technologies.

They will get better at filtering the crap out of the training set by comparing it to know good information. This will raise the cost of training on new information, but as it will actually result in data being removed from the corpus, it will also produce savings. AI will become more biased as the sources of information are selected more carefully, but some bias is positive — for example, being biased towards sources of news which have provided accurate information in the past.

Filters can be added, though, and both humans and other software can be used. But since the organizations which can afford to build new models are all corporations, they're certainly not going to want to implement morals or principles.

Those two things are very different. An architect ultimately has to sign off on the bridge, and that architect is going to want to understand the AI's output before they do that. If the output is incomprehensible, then only a literally insane architect would put their pen to the page and agree that they should be held liable for the viability of the design. This doesn't exist in software (I would argue that it should, so would lots of others around here, which we know because they have done) and I don't think a court has decided yet whether you should be able to trust AI output in any scenarios.

What the majority of people have heard of is irrelevant a) on Slashdot, and b) in a discussion about programming. It's doubly irrelevant when both a and b apply. It's also extremely doubtful that you've never heard of it. It's happening every time you use a login on one site/network to log in to another site/network.

Do you mean, are preparing to do so immediately, or are already doing so? Yes.

Do you mean, are they ready to capitalize on its strengths and benefit from doing so? Heh heh heh

SEO doesn't make articles bad. What makes articles bad is writing them specifically and only for the purpose of SEO, and not caring about quality. Most people paying for copy seem mostly to want articles of a certain size. They don't care if they are any good. But why would you not want articles to contain some specific keywords that will raise article scores?

Yes, you could replace this entire video with AI and it would be an improvement. I have to watch it every year now.

Most copywriters are doing shit work now already. It's churn churn churn for SEO. AI can do that just fine without any help. It doesn't matter if it puts out bullshit, it's replacing bullshit.

My brother in Chris, there will be no UBI. They are making that clear all over the world right now. Fascism is rising.

An LLM will only go down whatever path you lead it. It's just a tool and like any other tool it can be used to bad ends. I don't even think this is a solvable problem. If we understood what or what not could cause some inclined to commit suicide to end their own life we could probably prevent them from attempting it in the first place. I suppose you can make an LLM that just refuses to respond to certain prompts or ignores specific topics entirely, but humans will judge it less useful or too constrained and abandon it in favor of something else.

Do you mean the computer code, visual graphics, and audio compositions that were all made by humans? Are you going to argue that because the noise came from a trombone or that the words were printed on paper that the instrument or the book have rights?

After reading the summary and chuckling mirthfully, I'd love to see someone get a group of LLMs to play various games against each other and seeing the way they play along with the banter. It might be the most interesting social (anthropologically speaking) experiment since Twitch Plays Pokemon. All of the various companies are claiming their AIs are the best and I can think of no less of a meaningless way to determine that by having them play Catan, Magic, or any number of other games. A DnD session would probably be even more amusing.

Unlike spies, reporters (or the good ones at least) will tell the entire world what they found. It's a dangerous job at times, but you cannot expect to have a functional democracy without a free press and strong protections for it, even though you'll get a lot of cranks or propagandists enjoying those protections as well. It's no different than any other domain where ceding rights just because some scoundrels toe the line is just slitting your own neck in the long run.

As for governments, I'll always support anyone airing their dirty laundry. The old saying about not doing anything you wouldn't want grandma to read about in the papers should apply to states as well and they'd be better for following that safe advice.

Speech is generally recognized as something that's produced by humans. If I wrote a very simple bot program that followed you around the Internet and spammed you, you'd hardly be amenable to arguments that my bot program enjoys free speech protections under the first amendment to engage in such behavior.

Regardless of your ultimate thoughts on this lawsuit or the parties involved, an LLM is not anywhere near human enough to be granted anything resembling human rights or constitutional protections.

Only somewhat correct. Unemployed because the AI companies convinced the CEOs that they can cut headcount and be fine.