It's certainly one of the few things that actually gets their attention. But aren't there more important things than this for the Luigis among us?
I would suspect there's good money in offering a service to detect AI content on all of these forums and reject it. That will then be used as training data to refine them which gives such a service infinite sustainability.
>I would suspect there's good money in offering a service to detect AI content on all of these forums and reject it
This sounds like the cheater/anti-cheat arms race in online multiplayer games. Cheat developers create something, the anti-cheat teams create a method to detect and reject the exploit, a new cheat is developed, and the cycle continues. But this is much lower stakes than AI trying to vacuum up all of human expression, or trick real humans into wasting their time talking to computers.
The heart rate monitors in Google and Fitbit devices are insanely inaccurate during exercise. I had suspected as much already. Whenever a brisk walk indicated my pulse was 150 or so. But first, I could not reproduce this wearing a halter device and later I could not reproduce this wearing a polar heart rate monitor or a Frontier X2 ECG.
Conclusion, Fitbit and Google heart rate monitors on those wearables are hot garbage. Cue some snooty googler insisting I'm doing it wrong somehow.
So $300K in 1994 is about $640K. That's nice but about 80th percentile of net worth. It's nice his parents believed in him. How many of your parents would do that for you? I'm sure at 1 in 5 of them have that kind of money because of the distribution here. So the difference here is He was smart, he got lucky, and your parents don't believe in you enough on this front.
But compare and contrast Bezos and Musk. Bezos's mid-life crisis is leaving his wife to run around on his yacht banging models. Musk's mid-life crisis is trying to destroy democracy so he and his mom won't have to pay US taxes. Neither one is a role model, but I don't even get the point of the latter.
Which brings us back to AlphaFold. The AlphaFold team did something amazing. But also, they had a backer that believed in them. David Baker, for better or worse, didn't achieve what they did and he'd been at it for decades. It's amazing what good backing can achieve.
ACE score of 5. I turned out badly. Rich, but badly. Just ask any of the data faking cheating scientists I channeled my trauma into exposing who got me kicked out of academia. But that's how I got rich. Money changes everything.
You will never feel safe. You will instead build a life, a portfolio, and a network of friends as a surrogate for feeling safe. And you can trust my words, I'm shadowbanned.
> Just ask any of the data faking cheating scientists I channeled my trauma into exposing who got me kicked out of academia. But that's how I got rich.
I don’t know what you are referring to, but I am curious. Would you explain?
It's the past. I've let go of it as much as I can. But I will always have what if questions about it. But broadly, academia was a dead-end. I should have never gotten a doctorate, it was a waste of time. And I doubly should never have done a post-doc because that's indentured labor. The day I left academia my salary more than tripled my income, an experience many sorts in AI encountered more recently. Unless one is born into wealth, academia is a horrible choice IMO. And too many of the tenured sorts calling the shots are some of the most unethical sorts I've ever met. Ironically, the most ethical team I ever worked with was at a hedge fund likely because it's pretty hard to hide the loss of funds at one. And everything else has been between those two extremes.
It was only last year that I realized the country music opening theme "Benson, Arizona" was about relativistic travel through space, shortly after playing it because I had just driven through Benson, Arizona.
The group Clam Chowder, who played at conventions in the Washington, DC area and beyond, did a cover of Benson Arizona that was extremely popular at their concerts.
In 5 to 10 years we will have likely moved on to the next big model architecture just like it was all about convolutional networks 5 to 10 years ago despite the pivotal paper being published in 2017.
Sure, people hate tech. And tech clearly hates its own customers. So why hasn't something that doesn't hate its own customers disrupted tech? If anything, the enshittification is just getting worse. Prime video's random ads alone should have led to mass cancellations but it's not happening, is it? So what exactly will lead to people walking away as opposed to grumbling as things keep getting worse and worse?
Reminds me a lot of politics in the United States at this point: stuck with two disappointing parties with almost no chance of a third party really shaking things up because the one thing they can agree on is that a third party should never arise.
If tech and the customers hate each other, they wouldn't be making revenue. Of course, there's a couple of exceptions (e.g. monopolies, addictions) but that doesn't really describe AI for example.
I think the answer is that people simply do like the tech. We voluntarily use social media platforms (nosurfing is possible), and the average person clearly finds great use in ChatGPT, MidJourney, Character and AI in general.
Essentially -- the complaining doesn't represent what the market (the people) actually want. It's controversial for sure but the willing customer base is large enough.
Ministry For The Future was far too optimistic. Termination Shock presents how late stage capitalism and the accelerationists would team up to make money on half-baked science to save the planet. The West will probably be fine but we're going to make Mao and Stalin look like amateur hour mass murderers when we finally save our own butts.
Why the burgeoning economic development of full self-driving space needles! Sure, their former homes will be uninhabitable, but imagine how much they'll get selling the land? Why they'll be able to move to Antarctica if that's what it takes! I'm getting a tear in my eye right now over all that profit and shareholder value as we boldly evacuate the planet into the future!
I encourage you to take a crash course in Mooré, go to Burkina Faso and spread the word to the people. "You will not improve your cirumstances, any more prosperity will destroy the planet." I'm sure they will appreciate your wisdom, almost as much as Cubans appreciate their very eco-friendly economic circumstances. Good Luck.
I apologize for my parent comment, it was terrible. I just don't know how to respond to the the broad idea complex that we need less/no economic growth. The way I see it there are two ways it could go. Either the poor countries don't develop or we somehow transfer the economic resources from away from the countries that are currently rich. Non-development is cruel, redistribution is impossible politically and there is also a chance that the recipients go the way of South Africa.
What about sustainable development funded by developed countries? They can help poor countries leapfrog the fossil fuel stage by paying for or subsidizing solar- and wind-powered grids, hydro power, batteries.
I would suspect there's good money in offering a service to detect AI content on all of these forums and reject it. That will then be used as training data to refine them which gives such a service infinite sustainability.