It's a regulation forced on them by the EU's AI Act, which neither companies nor users want.
The target audience for this particular rule of the AI Act isn't the producers or users of AI. It is the consumers of content that might be AI generated.
And frankly, letting people know if they see AI content or not is a fair thing to ask.
And honestly, "not measuring how much a human contributed" is IMHO a massive flaw in general
Fun fact: The EU AI Act considers this. It makes a difference between "AI generated" and "AI modified".
But it's hard to put this into the type of watermarking they are using. Because if you generate a text and then change a few things here and there what you are doing is degrading the watermark. But since the watermark is probabilistic, it's hard to tell if it was a weak watermark from the start or if it was degraded.
Democrats are not "prioritizing trans athletes". It is Republicans who talk about them all the time, incessently. You are example #1.
The difference is that if you pay people to monkey around with things, you get a non-revocable perpetual license to the result. With license rental, you get a perpetual bill. It's the same rent trap as individuals get stuck in but with less excuses.
For some customers, they looked at the resources needed to migrate, and decided it was cheaper to stay put and/or invest the resources that would be needed elsewhere in their business.
Yes, and the reason is that they stupidly painted themselves into a corner and never thought about an exit strategy. Had they been thinking about the possibility that they might one day need to migrate from the beginning, it would be much cheaper to do so now.
That's the thing about painting yourself into a corner, a little better planning at the start can always avoid it with little to no additional effort.
People have been kicking off interactions to complex to fully imagine all possible outcomes
That ain't the same thing.
This thing is doing things you didn't tell it to. It might even do things you explicitly told it to not do. It is not a case of "well, you could've forseen this as a consequence if you had been careful" like your campfire. My example is only a bit silly, it is absolutely possible that an AI agent will decide to hack NASA because you asked it for some data for a school project. Even in the broadest possible sense, that does not fall into stuff that the law so far has considered to be in the domain of negliegence.
AI agents do stuff you could not possibly have expected. Heck, I asked Claude a fairly simple knowledge question yesterday and it wanted to read from
It's hard to believe that a Jordanian teenager learned the PeopleSoft vendor integration API well enough to exploit it.
Probably somebody whose dayjob is related.
Maybe he was just Vibesploiting, but it seems less likely.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again for those who arrived lete: If you give an AI agency of any kind, imagine everything you ask of it to be appended with "by any means necessary", because that' how it will interpret it. Slander, doxxing, and murder will definitely NOT be off the table even if you explicitly forbid them. That's the problem.
Honestly it should be called string toolbag. It contains some math that might (or might not) one day be useful in constructing a theory but it honestly has never actually been predictive enough to call it a theory.
A little of each. Banks in the U.S. actually maximized inconvenience by being closed any time most people actually had a decent opportunity to go to the bank, but it worked out somehow.
We already have string theory for that:-)
While the line of reasoning is sound, it's more or less a non-theory of exclusion.
If they cause fewer deaths than they prevent, then it's still a win, because though some people would die who otherwise would not have, MORE people would live who otherwise would not have.
This is basically what I said, but there are nuances. If a net of 100 lives are saved but there are a net of 100 more people who are put in a lifelong coma and have to be cared for round-the-clock in intensive care until they die of old age, and everything else is equal, I wouldn't count that as a clear-cut "win" or even a "win" at all. Depending on the net value you put on a life of someone living in a decades-long coma, you might count it as a win and that's fair. But I wouldn't.
we must make mistakes before we know how to mitigate damage
That's why you run pre-production-quality hardware/software in test environments, and you plan for failure even in production environments.
Civilization, as we know it, will end sometime this evening. See SYSNOTE tomorrow for more information.
