The question isn't an abstract application of law. The question is:

How do we prevent abuses from the police?

LOL the house of the lotus eaters was just a room with walls covered by infinite scroll videos you wanted to see.

It can be used for good (or entertainment).

For example, you can get digital picture frames around your house. Change the picture contents depending on who is closest. Change the lighting in the room automatically based on who is in there.

So they programmed it to do something, and it did it? Works as expected.

ok but

https://www.youtube.com/shorts...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts...

They won the lawsuit, they still lost the data.

Iron Mountain isn't the cheapest.

This should be a big warning to anyone who uses them: this will happen to you.

A "dinner party."

No, the internet dipshits are the ones who think truth has a side.

(Hint: that's you.)

I think you misread the article. It pushes back on the idea that DEI is bad, but it doesn't push back on the idea that he was a DEI hire.

Yeah of course, but Hillary's emails aren't related to tariffs on drones.

The side to be on is the side of fact. As soon as you realize you're not on the side of truth, switch sides. That's how you win.

It sounds fair, and maybe even a little generous.

Investors are chasing a company that achieves some kind of AI singularity. Let's set aside the fact that there's no reason to believe there is anything but diminishing marginal returns by making marginal refinements to current frontier models. Let's imagine someone hits the jackpot and gets, not even AGI, but a system that's as far ahead of today's frontier model are ahead of 2020's GPT 2.0 in performance.

Globally AI revenues are 150 billion, against a cumulative burn rate of 450 billion. A model that is a generation ahead of others would almost certainly capture the lion's share of that revenue.

If AGI magically appears as a Sam Altman has promised investors it will, a hundred million is way too low. Add, maybe, another zero to the revenues.

Conservatively, a safer assumption is that frontier models will get marginally better based on refinements in training and reinforcement and the other bits and bobs that go into these systems. The nobody is winning the lion's share of anything, at least overnight. But you have to define "safe". By "safe" I mean unlikely to lose money. But some investors are clearly defining "safe" as "having the greatest chance of owning a piece of the biggest thing ever."

I'm not following this super-closely, but if Anthropic is pursuing adding multi-step model based reasoning to their system, that could be the basis of a generational leap in capability. But if that is an approach that looks like it has a chance of working, then their competitors are no doubt pursuing the same thing. In that case you'd expect the revenue pie to grow as the scope of model utilty increases, but that growth to be split among several competitors. This could credibly result in a revenue stream for some of them that is as big as the entire industry's revenue stream today. But there's going to be hell to pay on the data center impacts end of things.

If they work, then why not use them as the first line of treatment?