Comment Re:Umm... what are we talking about? (Score 1) 21
These threads are space filler and have been for decades.
These threads are space filler and have been for decades.
Since 1999. If Redmond built OS and applications as well as their hardware the world would be a better place.
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.
Many Rust Belt cities need investment. They've vast disused smokestack industrial areas with power, water and sewer. They have millions of obsolete structures begging for the wrecking ball.
Data center operators could be incentivized to demolish toxic eyesores and replace them with clean data centers. The low population impact from data centers won't overcrowd Rust Belt areas while contributing to their development.
Development deals could be generous while requiring demolition of areas not yet planned for development. The closer they become to greenfield sites the better. Obsolete cities whose reason for being evaporated still retain road, rail and power.
Adaptive reuse beats developing rural farmland etc.
This isn't like manually digging through dead tree archives in some musty basement.
Old people lingering longer instead of passing away has no benefits for the species, only emotional benefits (which will vary according to circumstance!) for the old (most of) who instinctively fear death.
The species thrives because individual lives expire. Most lives contribute nothing so prolonging them does nothing useful for our species. Death really IS natures change agent.
Fear of death does not in any way make death somehow wrong.
Turnover replaces intellectually ossified old minds with new minds in new bodies. Most people are alive because we instinctively fear death. (Much of that fear fades over time.)
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 couldn't do worse.
Ever notice that even the busiest people are never too busy to tell you just how busy they are?