My requirements are local only and fast.

Start with the simplest tool you have available and go from there. If it becomes a habit and you have certain pain points then you can always switch. But trying to find the PerfectTool_TM before you're even journaling feels like putting the cart before the horse.

You're also assuming that AGI will help you or us. It could just as easily only help a select group of people and I'd argue that this is the most likely outcome. If it does help everybody and brings us to a new age, then the only reason to learn will be for learning's sake. Even if AI makes the perfect novel, you as a consumer still have to read it, process it and understand it. The more you know the more you can appreciate it.

But right now, we're not there. And even if you think it's only 5-10y away instead of 100+, it's better to learn now so you can leverage the dominant tool better than your competition.

Hopefuly it dies down soon but I doubt it. At least we don't have to hear garbage about "WHy doEs opEn ai hAve oPEn iN thE namE iF ThEY aReN'T oPEN SoURCe"

But they're not competing with cloud AI. Why would a person need to go to the cloud to give you a reminder or download an app? They're competing against the current local assistant, Siri.

Large models are great but they can't fit on 8 or 16gb of ram. And that's a very big deal.

>ThEY DON'T tHiNk. They'rE JuSt STochAStiC pARrotS. It'S not ReAL AGi.

It doesn't even matter if these claims are true or not. They're missing the point of the conversation and the paper. Reason is a perfectly valid word to use. So is think. If you ask it a question and then follow up with 'think carefully' or 'explain carefully'. You'll get the same response.

inb4 AcTUALLy LlMS Can'T do aNYtHIng CaRefUlly BECaUse pRogRAms ARen'T caRefUl

More seriously, only time will tell if today's event will have any significance. Even if OpenAI somehow goes bankrupt, given enough time, I doubt the history books will talk about its decline. Instead they would talk about its beginning, on how they were the first to introduce LLMs to the world, the catalyst of a new era.

The rich will ALWAYS get their piece of the pie, and once they've had their fill, we'll be left fighting for the crumbs and thanking them for their generosity.

AI won't solve world hunger, it will make millions of people jobless. It won't stop wars, it will be used as a tool for the elite to spread propaganda. The problems that plague society today are ones that technology (that has existed for decades) can fix but greed prevents it.

It's an absolute absurd way to compare things and incredibly reductive.

Have you tried VR before? You really don't need perfect simulation to be fooled. Good enough is already here, albeit for a short amount of time.

This is such a strange comment and is so removed from my lived experience that I question whether its even real. Where is this indoctrination happening? The vast majority of my classes were dedicated to learning the subject and there was rarely any room for deviation. Especially not deviation that turned to religion or politics. Even when discussing religious texts in my philosophy classes, it was through the lens of an academic. The same way that we discussed plato and aristotle. There was open discussion and if the conversation turned aggressive or wasn't going anywhere it was quickly shut down. We all had a curriculum to follow and certain debates can be taken anywhere or happen outside of class. If you wanted to challenge your professors, it was about your grade and that was usually done during office hours. Professors are humans and they all have their quirks but I didn't experience anything out of the norm while talking to them or hearing about their interaction with others.

As for challenging each other, I think we did more learning from each other than anything else and our opinions did change over time but that's not indoctrination, just part of growing up.

You say you went to university 20 years ago but did you end up going back afterwards? If so, what are the differences you've personally noticed?

People have ideals, companies do not. The people employed by those companies have ideals but its beyond foolish to think that those ideals would be prioritized over profit.

Businesses don't have a conscience, people do, but that doesn't mean that the business will do the right thing. Sure, the ideals of the person and the ones the company reports can match up, but it's only through luck and not out of a sense of the greater good.

It's not an endorsement. People make associations all the time consciously or not. There are obviously positive and negative associations. And if it's within your power to reduce the negative associations which might impact the perception of your product then why won't you do it? Advertising is primarily an appeal towards emotion not logic. It's manipulative by nature.

I don't know what I'm saying that's so unreasonable.

Also, I can't control whether some homeless person pees next to my billboard, but if my competitors also have billboards in the area then I may still come out on top. But if I can move my weight to move those homeless people elsewhere, preferably to my competitors billboards then I'll do it. This isn't a moral argument.

And if news outlets don't want to work with him then they can just stop inviting him to things. They don't need to accuse him of anything. Just stop giving him roles and he's out of the spotlight. He'll fade away into obscurity.

Take your meds and get off the internet for a bit.

Emphasis on the AND. There is some correlation between Youtube's popularity and the lack of moderation but that isn't what made them popular.

I do agree on the advertiser's demanding moderation and I honestly don't blame them. If I made a product and I'm paying good money for advertising. I wouldn't want my products to be even remotely associated with anything that might promote controversy AND lower sales. Emphasis on the AND. The companies job is to make money and if that means embracing censorship or decrying it then they'll do it. Hell, they'll even do both at the same time. Advertisers are a leech on society and I hate that I'm defending them. But they pay the bills so....

That doesn't mean that vast majority of users don't want moderation. Every "free-speech" alternative to an already existing platform that I've visited has been complete shit. Filled with nutjobs that couldn't play nice with the normal folk.

There was a solution and it involved beating the corporations into submission before they ever amassed such a massive amount of power. This idea of endless growth needed to be stopped and society needed to transition to a more sustainable way of living. But it's honestly too late. Corporations are made up of people but those people aren't in control.

The most impactful action that a single person can take is to not have children. Let the population drop and kill all demand. Thankfully cooperations are making this choice easier than ever.

I'm not really worried about bias, since from my experience, summarization software will inherit the bias of the creator. Sure, it's behind generative AI, which can introduce more bias but it's not like the original article is hidden. No one is forced to use it.

And search engines aren't going anywhere. If the model gives an answer that you aren't sure about, you do a search on your favorite search engine, refine your search or switch search engines. Even for the tech illiterate people using google, they can just go to page 2 and they'll eventually find what they are looking for.

There's never been a time in history than right now where you can find like minded people easily with fringe interests and opinions. And as long as the internet exists that's not going to change. This future you are painting where information is being withheld doesn't exist. It doesn't matter how many book burnings there are, once the information is out. It's out for good.