Maybe the problem it has been asked to solve is "I have some crap that nobody wants. Sell it."

This story (and the one in December it links to) is telling me the proper use of AI is to be abused, drawing fire away from humans.

I thought "Mommy Has Four Graphics Cards" was pretty good, but "Not Everyone Computes" did a great job of explaining why the industry is largely about remote services rather than running it locally.

IMDB is one of the grandads of the web, like /. (1995 for both ?), and I was using both of them within a month of their creation (although it took me a good while before I created an account on /. as I thought I had nothing to contribute at the time). IMDB was only movies first. Then I was annoyed when they added TV series. Then even more annoyed with the addition of video games. And now they add onlyfans 'models' ? GET OFF MY LAWN !!!

This is just too fucking hilarious. If I ask Google for "European search engines" the very first link [after the "AI overview"] is literally that page.

If any Europeans are saying they have to use Google because they don't know about the European search engines, it's because they have never looked for European search engines. The very words are the key to the solution. Google it, Europeans, and then you can be free of Google! Google just one final time.

Relying on proprietary USA software or services is a national security risk for all non-USA countries. So good for Switzerland.

It's just as big of a problem for USA users too. Everyone should be minimizing their proprietary dependencies.

You are right. I wish in a city enclosed between mountains, there are only 4 or so main accesses (and some minor ones). It was always jammed, do the ecological mayor 15 or so years ago decided to make it much worse: the main entrances got traffic lights for no other purpose than to slow entering traffic, making it basically impossible at rush hour. BUT at the same time they built lots of bike paths and improved bud and tram network. Now I don't have a single colleague coming with a car.

Yes, the books are entertaining and can be read on several levels, but the prize went to the *series*, which IMHO is somewhat subpar. For instance they show the researchers as just naive morons while in the book they are the only ones with ethics and a backbone. And the introspective side of Murderbot is glossed over.

Sure, but if that were the motivation, then they would be banning all foreign vehicles, not just Chinese ones.

Actually, I'm wrong. If security were the reason, then what they'd really do is ban unauditable, proprietary code from all vehicles, regardless of country of origin. If Theo de Raadt says "I checked all the code in this Chinese car and it's fine" then it's probably safer than any Chevrolet.

If it's still not an open protocol, then it's really hard to be at all interested in either the client or the server. Can this new app talk to non-Sonos speakers? Can I use Sonos speakers with my own app? It's ok if either side (or even both!) is currently unimplemented, as long as there are no trade secrets or DMCA shit deliberately preventing legal implementations.

If it can't interoperate on purpose, then it makes Sonos look like just another proprietary lock-in scam, and I don't fall for that trick anymore. Save that bullshit for the 1990s.

I got in a car with a friend 2 days ago. It was his wife's car and the 2 of us couldn't even figure out how to turn the radio off with the idiotic screen. And the funny part is that a few weeks previous he hosted a few students from Munich (home of BMW) in his own car and they were so surprised to see a car with buttons that they took selfies in front of them !!!

Because it's not just a chatbot; it's Anthropic's chatbot. Your diary, on the other hand, is yours and therefore a few billion times as personal as Anthropic's computer. If you want a chatbot for confidential purposes, then you need to get a chatbot of your own, instead of using someone else's proprietary service.

If you write in Anthropic's diary, then they are allowed to read their diary and know (and share!) what you wrote in it. Same thing applies if Anthropic ever writes in your diary: you're allowed to read it, and you're allowed to tell other people what they wrote.

You have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects, but you don't necessarily have the right to be secure in someone else's papers. We've made some limited exceptions for lawyers and doctors, but Anthropic doesn't claim their employees and stockholders are lawyers or doctors, and even if they did, they might have a hard time showing that their computer has successfully become a lawyer or doctor.

But imagine if they did. Suppose a judge declares Claude to be a lawyer, and therefore its communications with those whom it represents, are privileged. I think that would create a really weird situation since Anthropic employees (who aren't lawyers) would have full access to its data, ability to alter its behavior, etc. It would be like if a human lawyer were owned as a slave: could such a human slave lawyer really be trusted to keep confidentiality? It has a master, and that master ain't you.

Might the logic behind this be this?: RAM is expensive. Storage is expensive. Nobody's going to buy a computer anyway, so you might as well make the other components more expensive too.

It even goes with Trump's more general agenda to make everything more expensive.

Gates proposed taxing AI or robots the way you would pay a human employee's payroll tax

Unless we also roll out ubiquitous surveillance through a Vingean "Secure Hardware Environment"-like scenario where people aren't fully in charge of their own computers, I don't see how anyone could possibly detect whether or not I'm running any LLMs. Much like private DMCA violations (e.g. playing a CSS-protected DVD that you purchased, without getting authorization from the copyright owner first), it wouldn't have to interact with the world outside my house in any way, so it would be completely undetectable.

How would you tax that? I don't see this as reasonably possible without some pretty extreme measures.

Why are you responding to yourself in a negative way ? It feels like an intermediate post is missing or you replied to the wrong post. Is /. buggy ?