I am wondering that will happen If something reaches such a "singularity".
I am wondering if there will be some government or economic reagulation that says "If you fire 100 employees and replace then with AI thus reducing your expenses by X%, then your end product should cost less correspondingly".
I haven't seen much discussion around this possibility, but I am surprised because it appear to be something fair and maybe even crucial.
It would be ok if people lost jobs, and the products and services become cheap correspondingly.
But it would be a problem if people lost jobs and all the product and services keep costing the same as before, and get costlier over time as before...
They can lie, but that lie will remain in the books that have gone into circulation. A lie on the internet can be reversed or erased after it has been consumed by millions of human eye balls.
"Important" does not sustain it. Even youtube, something that provide huge entertainment value would not have sustained if not for advertising revenue.
The point is that IA it is an anomaly soon to be dead or worse, taken over.
We generally consider it a good thing that written falsehoods can be amended to instead say the truth. That's what we do with book errata and editions too.
The bigger issue is the attempt to rewrite history as if the falsehood was never there, which is in my opinion a much bigger lie. As I see it, this can be handled by third party archives and by us as a society actually attaching repercussions to such outright lying.
If you use LLMs in a way that the underlying assumption is that it is capable of "thinking" or "caring" then you are going to get burned pretty bad. Because it is an illusion and illusions disappear when they have to bear real weight of reality.
But sadly LLMs push all the right buttons that lead humans into that kind of behavior. And the marketing around LLMs works overtime to reinforce that behavior.
But instead if you ignore all that and use LLMs as a search tool, then you will get positive returns from using it.
>convenience trumps privacy in practice in a lot of cases. T
I quite recently found that the "CRED" app works by requesting permission to access the user's WHOLE INBOX and reading their mails. The users apparently have no problems giving access to their all mails to some app that they don't have control or ability to scrutinize.
I am not a professional. But I had done some film photography in its last days.
The photos that I took during the time, just casually, tops any photo that I take now a days with by DSLR.
It is not in raw "quality". But what are we trying to capture when we take a picture? Is it raw pixels? or is it some emotion that we originally got when we were looking at something.
For some reason, I think film captures and regenerate that emotion when you look at the photograph in a way that a digital capture cannot.
I cannot explain it, but the the closest thing that I have found that could explain it is..It is in the context of b/w but I think the same applies to color as well..
That emotion is nostalgia, whether real or perceived. It's not a bad thing, some of my favorite photos are on b&w film. Film has a texture and (inaccurate) colors/tones that aren't really reproduced in digital cameras but are all over the place in media we consume and personal/family photos, usually from an older time.
> That emotion is nostalgia, whether real or perceived.
Absolutely. One of my prized possessions is a book I had made from digital pictures I took on a family trip when my kids were 3 & 4 years old. The pictures are of single-digit megapixel quality, but are perfect for what they needed to be: a reminder of that trip, and the memories contained within.
It seems to me that the slightly fuzzy aspect of old pictures better matches our fuzzy memories of that time.
It is not nostalgia. It was the photo of a stray dog on a beach, and a bunch of fishermen drawing in a big fishing net..so nothing personal or long lost to be nostalgic about...
You don't have to have an emotional connection to the subject to feel nostalgia, it can be more abstract than that, such as the way highlights are rendered or the grainy texture. Good art evokes emotions anyways, it doesn't need to be something you're personally tied to.
I think so, but the results does not appear same. Did you get a chance to read the post I shared in my comment. It explains why this could not give the same results.
This is like looking at old b/w photos of people for example. This feels like art. Brings memories and has zero relation to a physical quality of material.
I am wondering if there will be some government or economic reagulation that says "If you fire 100 employees and replace then with AI thus reducing your expenses by X%, then your end product should cost less correspondingly".
I haven't seen much discussion around this possibility, but I am surprised because it appear to be something fair and maybe even crucial.
reply