So it looks like hidden within the Big Beautiful Bill that there’s an additional giveaway for the Tech Bros and AI supremacists: a ban on state AI regulations for 10 years! 
1 Like
This is a very interesting article which mirrors alot of what I am now seeing using ChatGPT.
Welcome to Garbage In/Garbage Out (GIGO). Formally, in AI circles, this is known as AI model collapse. In an AI model collapse, AI systems, which are trained on their own outputs, gradually lose accuracy, diversity, and reliability. This occurs because errors compound across successive model generations, leading to distorted data distributions and “irreversible defects” in performance. The final result? A Nature 2024 paper stated, “The model becomes poisoned with its own projection of reality.”
More mistakes or ‘hallucinations’ are creeping into my answers, perhaps because its also scraped most of the good verified data from the WWW and is now hoovering up AI generated rubbish or misinformation.
So I could be wrong, but it seems to be regressing as it reaches the point of diminishing returns.
1 Like
Incest is not good for humans, why would it be any better for robots and software?
2 Likes
Does that mean that the more complicated the AI gets it could also get human like mental illnesses. Schizophrenia, depressions, even autism?
I read an old 1970ties sci-fi where AI psychologists were a thing.
Not so far fetched I believe.
naaaa. While your version of course sounds much more exciting and it totally en vogue, it’s just a system that obviously doesn’t work, they have to take the prototype off the market and go back to the lab with it.
It’s not the first time, we had to find the faults of prototypes, much cheaper this way.
Hmm.. ok! But I believe that it is only a matter of time before we… humans… create sentient, synthetic life forms.
I base my premise on the idea that anything nature does, we will be able to copy.
Moving fast, flying, creation of a world brain.. (H. G. Wells) mastery of the Atom and God like powers.
So, when we find that our technology is self aware then would it develop “issues” that need a shrink?
if that’s so it will definitely be delayed by Trump’s science phoby.
So far it seems when ever humans copy nature they foget/leave out important bits which leads to worse.
I’m quiet sure by the time technology is self aware and develops issues (different ones from what we now think are issues, no doubt) they will find out they forgot to develop the shrinks. Wanna bet?
I see Trump as a blip in a declining country trying to cling on to greatness by any means necessary, this next century will be Chinese and their technology will very soon outpace that of the US
1 Like
It seems the cheetas are chasing the weakest AI company in the pack.
Midjourney claims to be self-funded. No famous/powerful venture capital, investor or big company behind them. That implies no legal budget or experience. This is going to be an R rated trial.
“This is an extremely significant development,” says IP lawyer Chad Hummel, who sees the compilation of images in the complaint as compelling evidence that “the output is not sufficiently transformative.” Most AI companies facing lawsuits have argued that they are protected by the “fair use” doctrine, which allows for use of copyrighted works in certain circumstances; one of the main questions the courts ask is whether new work is “transformative,” or adds a new meaning or message, when they make the fair use determination.
Matthew Sag, a professor of law and artificial intelligence at Emory University, believes Midjourney will have a harder time making a fair use case than previous AI defendants.
“The reason it’s different is that Disney directly attacks the output of the model. It doesn’t just use a few cherry-picked examples to prove that the model was trained on its works,” he says. “It’s going to be very difficult for a court or a jury to accept that it is transformative to take 1,000 pictures of Darth Vader and use them to produce even more pictures of Darth Vader.
In other ongoing AI copyright cases, some judges have emphasized that it will be crucial for plaintiffs to prove that the AI companies are hurting them financially. The Disney and Universal complaint describes the conflict as an existential threat to the film industry.
“Midjourney’s bootlegging business model and defiance of US copyright law are not only an attack on Disney, Universal, and the hard-working creative community that brings the magic of movies to life, but are also a broader threat to the American motion picture industry which has created millions of jobs and contributed more than $260 billion to the nation’s economy,” it reads.
Tangentially, there’s this part about plaintiffs needing to prove AI companies are hurting them financially. This might be some kind of framework for the future.
Take accountants being fired after being replaced by AI. Financial hurt is self-evident. The question is about how the AI got trained. If the AI got trained on the work done by accountants this gets interesting. Also, I remember signing away (surrendering) the intellectual property of my work to my employer during the 42.5 hours a week. So, an AI company may be trying to sell to X company the solution based on the intellectual property of X company. An agreement is feasible, but the profits for the AI company may not be there since the company with intellectual property has something to bargain with.
Ahhh, the future is exciting. Also, this:
Power rarely ends up in the hands of those who start a revolution, or even of those who further it; power sticks to those who bring it to a conclusion.
You should watch a few games. They’re absolutely crazy, even beginer-level players (possibly including non-players) will immediately understand why, for instance at 2:20 in the 2nd clip (just to be clear: pawns can’t go backwards).
As usual Levi’s comments are both instructive and hilarious.
Has anyone here gone public?
Finally! An amazing purpose for AI
Think about it! One day soon a cat will finally be able to convey the message “Take me to your leader”.
1 Like
Fixed that for you.
6 Likes
How to upset a Naturalist:
Google AI Grant to iNaturalist Prompts Community Outcry | Scientific American
Reason they are upset as quoted:
Many critics objected to the use of GenAI on environmental grounds—the technology uses vast amounts of energy and water, creates e-waste and drives demand for rare-earth metals, the mining of which contributes to habitat degradation. Detractors also worried that such a tool based on GenAI, which is notorious for “hallucinating,” would produce misinformation about species identifications. Others expressed concern about the possibility that their iNaturalist data could be used to devalue the work of professional taxonomists if the AI identification were presented as authoritative. Some said they would delete their accounts.
IMO technology itself has eroded many a brain.
1 Like
There was a time in the last century when the Yellow Pages did the walking.
Now there is a browser that does the browsing!
Military grade security means it is all shared over Signal 
2 Likes