... to blame store employees instead of technology or the management decision to knowingly deploy a flawed technology.

You'll start to see such "accountability sinks" a lot whenever a company needs to weasle out of legal and PR situations caused by their AI deployments.

Space is cheap compared to war and corruption.

He's long-winded, ideological, and sort of off-topic, but he's not necessarily wrong.

The world, preferably as a whole (as in Geneva convention-style), needs to firmly come down on one side or the other on whether deriving AI model weights from copyrighted material turns the weights, and more importantly, what is then generated from those weights, into derivative works of the training data--i.e., does the training data copyright apply to the products of inference?

Because, the current ambiguity seems incredibly unfair: organizations with powerful legal muscle can pressure smaller companies like Suno to adhere to their demands in the name of copyright law. Yet, more or less all large LLMs are trained on CC licensed text and open source software created by me and million others that legally require credit. If the music industry's copyright give leverage over Suno's AI weights, then *I* want to enforce my right to be credited on all LLM inference products that industry now uses. Or, alternatively, lets us all, once and for all, just agree that the derivation of AI weights are genuinely transformative so neither my nor the music industry's copyright applies here. Because, then at least I can use their stuff without being sued.

But the rule cannot be that it is the one with the largest legal muscle that case-by-case gets to decide this.

Also, the very concept of remote proctoring is a foolish dream. The kids are going to outsmart you... some of them anyways, and then they'll tell their friends how they did it.

No real worry about that: the usual crowd is greasing palms and heavily funding opposition to candidates who oppose AI or want to regulate it.

It (might) make sense for him because they will (probably) treat him very well, despite being more authoritarian (and evil) in general. This also makes sense if he prioritizes career over politics.

Absolutely no incentive. Normally ransomware gangs (I've heard) strive to provide great customer service in order to maintain trust that they will decrypt future victim's payloads. But since this attack was carried out by AI the data was at the mercy of a stochastic parrot. The lesson learned for the attackers will probably be to ask the attack to execute a known script once it achieves a toehold instead of trusting the prompt to do so the work.

How about we nationalize all those nice new data centers and pay dividends to all taxpayers? Oh, is that not the sort of solution they had in mind? *Shrug*

Was it premature? I don't have a dog in this fight, but from the summary it sounds like he broke a clear rule, was given warnings about his behavior, and then eventually banned after persisting in that behavior.

Misinformation is a genocide engine. That was true before social media (remember Yugoslavia?), and it's true now (see Myanmar for a recent example).

The problem with the internet is that it greatly accelerates factionalization (via filter bubbles, foreign influence campaigns, and algorithms that optimize for outage). It's fertile ground for seeding doubts and conspiracy theories (5g, flat earth, "pandemic", etc). This is corrosive and disintegrative.

To invent civilization, humans had to create and improve countless "social technologies" including language, art, religion, finance, law, corporations, and various schemes for distributing power and curtailing selfishness. The internet (and now AI) are something new and wholly transformative... we need new social innovations to deal with the problems they create. We will have to try a lot of things (many which, sadly will backfire or be abused) and it will take a long time.

I distinguish "social media" from "forums" by content and design. A forum (like slashdot) discusses ideas/news/events, either for a particular subject (furries), a broad domain (news for nerds) or the world in general; it's also predominantly textual and permits multi-paragraph responses, almost always in a threaded format. Social media (like Facebook, Instagram, and linked in), by contrast, revolves around participant's identities and social graph ~ think vacation photos, profiles, real name policies, community groups, business page that should have been dedicated websites, etc. While forums might have personalities (well-known prolific posters), only social media has influencers.

Social media is also heavily visual. This they have in common with meme sites (like imgur and 9gag), but the latter lack the sustained cultivation of personal (and business) identities.

Judging from the name of his drone ships, he's clearly read some of Iain Bank's Culture series. It features a futuristic interstellar socialist civilization run by benevolent AI's who just happen to be very deadly spaceships.

  (I recommend Player of Games for an easy/fun read and Use of Weapons for deeper theme/characterization.)

Once again, America's economic interests and foreign relations have suffered because we elected an emotionally fragile boy-king who can only think of himself. What's it going to be next month?

Left or right... At this point I'd just be happy for some adult leadership in the room.

I've always been pro free speech, but social media has left me wondering... if a business model can be shown to inherently fracture societies, destabilize democracies, and fuel genocide, should it be allowed to exist? Maybe there's a different way to share cat photos with your grandma that doesn't require entrusting our civic discourse to algorithms that maximize for fear and outrage.