There is a need for educated guessers, regardless of what we call them. The alternative is clueless guessers, who give us tariff inflation and stupid wars.

> was there a point you were trying to make?

Don't ask, or you'll get a page full of synonyms for the point! You should know better than feed TrollGPT

P.S. I know some b$stard is working on GoatseGPT.

I don't know WTF that bot is, but I want one!

Music composers have been using various "composer algorithms" for centuries for ideas. You don't hear about it because most users stay mum. Cartoonists usually have books of sample poses and facial expressions.

Best to get back to judging if the final result is "good", not whether it was bot-assisted, because detection will grow ever harder. Move on, can't put CatGPT back in the bag. Artists are becoming de-facto curators, so think of it as curating contests.

Apple seems to feel the same, and thus doesn't want to tie up too much money in AI. After the poppage*, Apple can snap up AI-ware at a nice discount.

* "bursting"?

You act as though there aren't any such entities that give fuck all what courts in the U.S. have to say about anything. I guess we'd better start giving them foreign aid so we can threaten to withhold it, but I'd prefer to save my tax dollars for something only slightly less stupid.

It doesn't sound like there's anything preventing them from moving to a different domain. The companies involved in this suit likely wasted orders of magnitude more in their own legal costs than actual damages done or what they could hope to legally recover. So the operators should set up shop elsewhere and let the idiots bleed themselves as long as they want to.

Out of curiosity, what about the post did you find to be retarded? I don't agree with everything that the poster states, but it was well written and gave me enough to understand the poster's perspective. It's something I would probably have moderated as interesting because it's a good perspective that makes me think about my own beliefs.

Meanwhile your own post hasn't bothered to even explain why you've come to this conclusion. Please enlighten the rest of us or fuck off back to Reddit it you want conformity that badly.

The memory companies have been shady for a long time. There are /. stories from decades ago covering how they colluded. Covid has nothing to do with them.

Apple isn't making their own RAM. They buy the chips from the existing manufacturers and solder it to the board or integrate it in some other way. I don't believe that they're stacking memory on the die, but I haven't kept up with what they've been doing as much as I used to. I don't think anyone has a process for integrating DRAM onto a CPU die yet (the closest is some AMD chips using TSMC that are stacking SRAM cache on top of or underneath the CPU) but it's probably coming in the next decade.

The memory companies have long acted like an oligopoly and colluded for their own benefit. Unless someone new gets in the game, don't expect them to add capacity because if they all agree not to they make more money. I'm mildly surprised that someone like Apple or Nvidia hasn't invested in a spinoff company to manufacture memory or even formed a jointly owned company to do this. Their costs have to be close to the capital investment required for such a venture.

They could just use an OS with a BSD license (or one fundamentally similar to it) instead. It's what Apple does for their products. OS X (and its derivatives) was built on FreeBSD. Another company could make the OS in this way and license it for a very low cost to the device manufacturers and make their money on volume. As long as that cost is less than whatever the expected value of bundling all the usual shit makes the device manufacturer less the cost of having an internal team do the same thing, it's in their financial interest to do that.

Nothing is preventing you or anyone else from offering a free alternative to these users. You are only stuck with what others are willing to provide if you don't want to try doing better. I'm not sure what incentive you (or anyone else for that matter) has to provide these services free of charge at your own expense, which may explain why no one is rushing in to supplant Google unless they have the same longterm strategy in mind. I don't know what alternatives to capitalism you envision that can magically solve these problems, but the fact that no one is offering alternatives leads me to believe that these alternatives rely on magic thinking on the part of their adherents. Go ahead and revolt though. I think that free email will be the least of anyone's concerns in short order if history is any indicator.

I think the point he may have been getting at is how is using an AI in that way any different than having an editor as an author? There are plenty of mainstream authors who have editors that work to trim down or adjust their works before publication. Yes, that's another human being who is credited for their work (though not always) and not all authors use them, but it's somewhat rare for anything to be published before some other person has seen it and given feedback. Some older works of literature were published as a series of weekly chapters before being compiled into a full novel and the authors would make changes based on public sentiments and feedback in some cases. To what extent can an AI substitute for other humans in any of these regards?

I'm not sure how I fully feel about it, but it's food for thought. I think to some extent it's just a more efficient way of doing the sort of things that humans are already doing. Much of literature is already people chasing trends and dumping out derivative crap to hopefully rise the wave as opposed to trying to do something new and creative, because that's rarely what people want and even if you succeed taking a chance it's only going to be met by scores of others chasing a new trend. If using AI makes the average author more successful then they'll largely replace the ones that don't use it. I'm sure there's still a market for hand knit socks, but most people want the cheap mass produced ones or can't afford the hand crafted ones if they wanted more than a pair for whatever reason.

Odd as it may sound a public market on this would also give the secret service better information to protect against such an attempt. There's also nothing stopping underground markets from doing this in the same way that the mob ran illegal betting operations for decades. The problem is unsolvable because a certain percentage of humans like to gamble regardless of how illegal it is and that demand will always create a market to satisfy it. The best solution may be to legalize it, but to place it under heavy scrutiny and to punish those who cheat or game the system.

The best way to regulate this may be to require that all participants have their identities revealed and that any positions that they take be public knowledge with restrictions against engaging in contacts related to anything connected to you personally or on behalf of anyone other than yourself. At a meta level we may need to let degenerate gamblers starve themselves to death so that their genes aren't passed on to future generations. Of course this won't eliminate black markets and illegal operations providing similar services without such restrictions, but hopefully a legal and regulated alternative discourages use of those.