Sir, your side has shot the man who demonstrated how left's ideas don't hold up in debates in the neck on front of his children.

And then your types are on the record going into the streets singing "we got Charlie in the neck" and other similar heinous shit.

Sit down.

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.

It's the same shit porn sites asked kids in the 1990s. "What is your date of birth".

Yes sir, I was born on january 1st 1970. Now let me the see the titties.

Honey, no one cares about academia any more. It's been studied by people who replaced them after far left subverted the academia. The corpos. And you can see the results not because they publish what they find, but because they act to generate results they want in reality based on things they found by studying each subject.

Refer to Spotify's current recommendations algorithm for details. Log in as a young person and observe as your recommendations rapidly take you down the AI music route.

Because that's what gets best retention and best payout.

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.

Again, if you think the artists don't use AI, it's because they didn't tell you.

A good example here is "I'm stuck, what rimes with x" that is a stereotypical writer block for song writers. Do you know what easily solves that problem?

LLM trained for it. I.e. Suno.ai.

Song writers writing a specific tune that just doesn't sound right that want to iterate on several close variants to determine what would sound better. Do you know what does this quickly? Suno.ai.

Again, the artists probably could, as we say it here, "climb up the tree ass first" and do this themselves. It will take them thousands to tens of thousands of times longer to solve the problem at hand than AI would solve it. But they could do it by hand.

But successful people are always starved for time. So they take every tool that will let them have a significant amount of extra time. AI is currently by far the most important tool in this category.

Another fun part: this has been studied. You're wrong on both accounts. People don't actually care (and often prefer) AI music, as long as they're not told it's AI music. I.e. telling them generates a nocebo effect.

And young generations are very much positive on AI music. They form a decent bulk of people who ask the likes of suno.ai make it for them. It's just that most of this music is something like "take this song that sounds cool, and make it more like this, because I like it more if it was like this". Sing with girlfriend's/boyfriends/crush's voice, etc.

Fun part: you can tell properly trained AI to give generated piece "a sense of the personality and mood of the specific performer". Today, 4/5 times it will be successful in doing so, provided it had enough of performer's works to learn from.

At this point, there are two kinds of successful artists.

Those that tell you that they use AI to assist with their craft, and those that lie about it.

Because the amount of extra work that needs to be done to without AI is ridiculous at this point. Add to this the part where AI provides several unique services that humans cannot deliver in time frames that aren't thousands to tens of thousands of times longer, allowing for rapid iteration on concepts that would be impossible otherwise, and today you no longer can be successful without it.

The only difference today is how much of it is used, for what parts, and what specific model.

It's only local to China in the sense that they choose what {packages/CCP poison} go in there.

For all values of u, Linux is local to u in the sense that u chooses what packages go in there.

Ha ha, Linux already has..

# top -o gpu
top: unrecognized field name 'gpu'

.. d'oh! Never mind.

And is asking an AI to proofread something that much different than MS Word flagging spelling and grammar errors?

Great question, and I think there isn't any significant difference.

But LLMs use a type of math that apparently has the evil bit set. Meanwhile, up here in VirtueVille, the computer code we write to create things, uses different math that doesn't have the evil bit set. Conclusion: we can look down on those AI companies and their stupid users. ;-)

Now, I wouldn't expect an AI service to be better at copyediting than an average human, but I haven't kept up so I'm ignorant of their performance. (All my "AI" experience is that I used Claude twice to, it turned out, fix some typos in some RoR config initializers.) But whether an AI service is as good at copyediting as a human or not, it's that user's choice and, as long as they sign off on the work and really take responsibility for it (declare the words to be their opinion), then I've got no problem with them doing that, whether it uses LLMs or Markov chains or human slaves or Searle's Chinese Room.

The words will be judged by their quality, not provenance.

That said...

Here's a similar story where I'd probably come to the opposite conclusion(!), despite the clown in it pretty much doing what I preach above, though he was using the AI service to do a lot more than copyedit. Behold this 3M expert witness cross-examination (134 page PDF) in the Watson Grinding case. It's slow going at first, but eventually you'll be laughing and cringing like in a good episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Fuck. I don't know.

I think the best term for AI luddites such as yourself is "AI Vegans".

Like vegans, you know a tiny sliver of reality, and make it your whole world. Like vegans, we don't need to know you're like this, because you'll tell us. Like vegans, you're wrong on almost everything. Like vegans, you believe your faith makes you a higher form of being, and those who disagree just "are lesser" i.e. "do not understand math".

Like vegans, you'll mostly go away in a decade or two.