I used to run a custom home theater setup with all sorts of remuxing and transcoding setups, then I found Infuse for AppleTV. Just point it at an SMB share and it plays pretty much anything you throw at it, as is.

Yup.

The Switch 2 has an argument going on between 'full cartridges' that actually have the installer and game data on the flash cart, and 'game key cartridges' where the only thing on the cart is the digital license, and when you insert it, it downloads the game from the Nintendo cloud, and the GKC lets you run it.

Which means you can loan/sell/give the GKC to somebody, and now they play the game, but without an internet connection, the GKC itself doesn't do anything for you.

Xbox discs since the One have been both; the install media and game data, plus the license key. I suspect PS5 discs are the same, probably PS4 discs. Hell, maybe even PS3 discs.

Gates proposed taxing AI or robots the way you would pay a human employee's payroll tax

Unless we also roll out ubiquitous surveillance through a Vingean "Secure Hardware Environment"-like scenario where people aren't fully in charge of their own computers, I don't see how anyone could possibly detect whether or not I'm running any LLMs. Much like private DMCA violations (e.g. playing a CSS-protected DVD that you purchased, without getting authorization from the copyright owner first), it wouldn't have to interact with the world outside my house in any way, so it would be completely undetectable.

How would you tax that? I don't see this as reasonably possible without some pretty extreme measures.

You're gonna die of something, so make your choice.

It's only local to China in the sense that they choose what {packages/CCP poison} go in there.

For all values of u, Linux is local to u in the sense that u chooses what packages go in there.

Ha ha, Linux already has..

# top -o gpu
top: unrecognized field name 'gpu'

.. d'oh! Never mind.

And is asking an AI to proofread something that much different than MS Word flagging spelling and grammar errors?

Great question, and I think there isn't any significant difference.

But LLMs use a type of math that apparently has the evil bit set. Meanwhile, up here in VirtueVille, the computer code we write to create things, uses different math that doesn't have the evil bit set. Conclusion: we can look down on those AI companies and their stupid users. ;-)

Now, I wouldn't expect an AI service to be better at copyediting than an average human, but I haven't kept up so I'm ignorant of their performance. (All my "AI" experience is that I used Claude twice to, it turned out, fix some typos in some RoR config initializers.) But whether an AI service is as good at copyediting as a human or not, it's that user's choice and, as long as they sign off on the work and really take responsibility for it (declare the words to be their opinion), then I've got no problem with them doing that, whether it uses LLMs or Markov chains or human slaves or Searle's Chinese Room.

The words will be judged by their quality, not provenance.

That said...

Here's a similar story where I'd probably come to the opposite conclusion(!), despite the clown in it pretty much doing what I preach above, though he was using the AI service to do a lot more than copyedit. Behold this 3M expert witness cross-examination (134 page PDF) in the Watson Grinding case. It's slow going at first, but eventually you'll be laughing and cringing like in a good episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Fuck. I don't know.

Facial recognition is really neat technology, and we are all slightly better off thanks to its development. It's also imperfect, and nearly-guaranteed to be a net negative if you fully trust it, without human verification.

If you want to come out ahead by using cool technology, you're going to have to think about how to use it. There just isn't any shortcut around thinking.

If you have something which is only 99.9% reliable, that can be useful but it's going to be wrong sometimes. How are you preventing that wrongness from breaking your system? Insulting (much less turning-away) regular, recurring, paying customers is usually considered a really bad move, generally resulting in lower profits.

Free money falls out of the sky. Should we take it? Today we'll be interviewing Republicans, and learning that the answer is No because asceticism is a fundamental ideal that we should all strive toward. Burn a sacrifice instead!

An LLM is just a stack of Transformer layers - they are great at what they do - prediction - but that is all they are built to do.

Humans are not just intelligent predictors. As a social species we have also evolved to (mostly) peacefully co-exist and co-operate, and a lot of our intelligence seems in fact to be collective intelligence.

If we want LLMs to behave in more human ways, then we need to make them more brain like, and start adding all the extra moving parts that evolution has equipped ourselves with.

As you increase the size of the bulk licenses' box, the amount of expensive cardboard increases as a square, but the number of licenses that fit inside the box increases as a cube. This results in a reduction of the amortized cardboard cost per license.

If a cost reduction isn't happening, then I would suggest people look into the shape of their bulk licenses. It may be that a same-sized box holds fewer licenses than it did ten years ago, due to the addition of "AI features" being tacked onto everything, resulting in irregular, difficult-to-efficiently-pack licenses.

Yeah - makes no sense to me either, but notable that this "you'll all be on UBI (government welfare)" is the best outcome he can think of.

But this is a good thing. Meta patenting this means there's only one company we need to worry about pulling this shit.

Read his comment again. His objection has nothing to do with what's being patented; it's just a super-generic anti-recording complaint. This patent does not prohibit anyone else from pissing him off by recording things.

Dario Amodei (Anthropic CEO)'s "Machines of Loving Grace" was the first of these, and if effect explains why others like Altman and Zuckerberg are chiming in.

Amodei's prediction:

1) AI will take ALL the jobs

2) Since people won't have any jobs, the government will have to provide UBI (universal basic income), aka food stamps

This is the most positive spin Amodei can put on the future that he is rushing to create, and not surprisingly people are not happy. The public increasingly see AI as an unwelcome technology that will create more problems than positive benefit.

This is at least part, a large part, of the reason that others like Altman and Zuckerberg are coming out with their own spin on how wonderful the AI future will be - because they realize public perception is massively against them (and also they are a bunch of arrogant pricks who think they are creating god, and are entitled to tell us how grateful we should be for it).

It doesn't help that the Facebook angle (that these are Meta's glasses rather than merely "smart glasses") injects all sorts of weirdness into the imagined application.

Facial recognition to identify people: has applications, such as the obvious "crap, I always forget names. Who is this guy, again?"

Highlight reels: WTF?! You call that an application? Extremely niche at best.

There's useful technology being discussed here, but apparently Meta doesn't want that to be the focus.