I didn't realize it was so heavy.

Right, this is an indictment of policing in America, not Flock.

But since you clearly cannot trust the police, you double cannot trust them with access to Flock.

You cannot keep the police from getting access to Flock, therefore the only reasonable thing to do to Flock is destroy it.

Yes, this is only* because the police are corrupt, but since they are...

* Yeah, and some other people too, this hyperbole is for the purpose of the discussion in scope

I think we both know that ship has sailed

I was going to say this is way too general, and AI involves many algorithms that are not LLMs.

Then I started thinking through the algorithms of the past, and many of them have indeed shown great promise in the beginning, then exponentially-increasing requirements.

Because of bureaucracy. Individuals all up and down the hierarchy are trying to meet arbitrary metrics set by someone who doesn't understand the situation. The ones who meet the metrics get promoted, even if the metrics make no sense.

Of course, there are smart scientists in China who try to do good research, but as is true everywhere, bureaucracy is a hindrance.

That is too optimistic on the listening.

A lot of people out there only heard "stay six feet away from people" and logicked, "What, a disease can only travel six feet then it drops dead?" No scientist said anything remotely close to that, but that is the reasoning people ended up with because they weren't listening at all.

I was thinking about the biotech, and creating a disease that will kill a bunch of people is easy enough that it will almost certainly happen.

On the other hand, creating a disease that will kill all humans is not easy. It's actually quite difficult. Which doesn't make you feel better if you run into a disease that kills you, but unselfishly I guess we should feel good about humanity?

I didn't see anything in that paper about the last universal common ancestor.

And this study is more about redefining life rather than producing any new information. Not very exciting in science terms.

It's hard to think of any laws that current LLMs actually follow.

The only one I've come up with so far is, "Respond if and only if the user gives you a command (prompt.)"

Good thing we hardly are made out of any bacteria.

Wait...

In which subfield is development not happening rapidly?

Won't you want those things to be software upgradable?

Except instead of pursuing policies that would help open models at the expense of Big AI, anti-AI people pursue just the opposite - policies that can cripple open source AI but have no realistic ability to meaningfully hurt big AI. It's so short sighted.

Actually, no, what they usually do is much more insidious: fingerprinting rather than watermarking. The fingerprint isn't actually included in the audio, it's included in a database. If they want to tell if the track was generated, they just try to match the fingerprint in the database. Can't filter it out of the track like you can with a watermark.