I think it's best if I log off and ignore your replies.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-created-images-lose-us-copy...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-copyright-office...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-co...

See the other reply for a half-counterexample, but the major difference is the specific software is more like generative PhotoShop, and the final image involved a lot of manual human work. Simply tweaking a prompt is not enough - again you can get copyright for curation, just not the images."

Of course AI can't be credited with copyright - neither can a random-character generator, even if it monkeys its way into a masterpiece. You need legal standing to sue or be sued in order to hold copyright.

"Yes, but is it not the intent of the artist to be ignorant and lazy?"

It is possible to repeatedly iterate AI art gen and get what you want, but that's not what happened here. And even so, it's not at all the same thing as drawing a picture: "iterating on what you want" is equivalent to curating art, not creating it. In the US you can copyright curation and that extends to curation of AI art - the US Copyright Office correctly said that tweaking prompts is the same thing as tweaking a Google Images search string for online image curation. But you can't copyright the actual AI-gen pictures, they are automatically public domain (unless they infringe someone else's copyright).

OTOH there are plenty of animal behaviors that can only be explained by intelligence: seeing-eye dogs perform a task which is economically useful for humans yet far beyond the ability of AI (even if the robotics mech eng issues are resolved). But it also doesn't really make sense that one of my cats is "instinctually" able to understanding my words while the other cat is "instinctually" able to outsmart me when we play with toys. The more sensible explanation is cats are intelligent and intellectually diverse.

  Specifically, better scores on the measures of impulsivity, emotional awareness and flexibility, and also the personality trait of agreeableness were all linked to higher patience scores.... But these results do suggest that patience is not so much virtue as a method to help us to deal with frustrations — and that some of us are better equipped to employ this coping mechanism than others.

This all seems explainable via shallow next-token prediction. Why is it that subtracting the concept means the system can adapt and create a new rhyme instead of forgetting about the -bit rhyme, but overriding it with green means the system cannot adapt? Why didn't it say "green habit" or something? It seems like Anthropic is having it both ways: Claude continued to rhyme after deleting the concept, which demonstrates planning, but also Claude coherently filled in the "green" line despite it not rhyming, which...also demonstrates planning? Either that concept is "last word" or it's not! There is a tension that does not seem coherent to me, but maybe if they had n=2 instead of n=1 examples I would have a clearer idea of what they mean. As it stands it feels arbitrary and post hoc. More generally, they failed to rule out (or even consider!) that well-tuned-but-dumb next-token prediction explains this behavior.

Worse is the impression that they are begging the question. The rhyming example was especially unconvincing since they didn’t rule out the possibility that Claude activated “rabbit” simply because it wrote a line that said “carrot”; later Anthropic claimed Claude was able to “plan” when the concept “rabbit” was replaced by “green,” but the poem fails to rhyme because Claude arbitrarily threw in the word “green”! What exactly was the plan? It looks like Claude just hastily autocompleted. And Anthropic made zero effort to reproduce this experiment, so how do we know it’s a general phenomenon?

I don’t think either of these papers would be published in a reputable journal. If these papers are honest, they are incomplete: they need more experiments and more rigorous methodology. Poking at a few ANN layers and making sweeping claims about the output is not honest science. But I don’t think Anthropic is being especially honest: these are pseudoacademic infomercials.

What happens if an upstart self-driving competitor promises human-level ETAs? Is a speeding Waymo safer than a speeding human?

And it's not "soft acceptance of Spanish here and there," all levels of government are legally required to print official documents in whatever languages their community speaks; cities usually have ballots in dozens of languages. This is a constitutional requirement, bolstered by the Voting Rights Act, and Trump has not yet done enough damage to make those legal requirements go away via diktat.

To be clear the US only has a unilingual policy because Trump signed an executive order this year (and I believe even this SCOTUS would strike the order down as unconstitutional if anyone had standing to sue over it).

The US has always been de facto unilingual, but de jure we don't have an official language since Trump has no legal authority to establish that. The "policy" is political and legally empty.

Or, since LLMs seem to be addictive, it's like getting rid of the spinach farms and replacing them with opium poppies. (I really hate this tech.)

  {index, middle, ring} ~ 
  {apple, other apple, other other apple} ~
  {1, 2, 3}

[1] In my view Peano axioms are the Platonic ideal of arithmetic, after the cruft of bijections and whatnot are tossed away. I agree this is splitting hairs.

  When Mosca and his colleagues surveyed cybersecurity experts last year, the forecast was sobering: a one-in-three chance that Q-Day happens before 2035. And the chances it has already happened in secret? Some people I spoke to estimated 15 percent—about the same as you’d get from one spin of the revolver cylinder.

  If you look at the administration of Washington, what is established looks a lot like a start-up. It looks so much like a start-up that this guy Alexander Hamilton, who was recognizably a start-up bro, is running the whole government — he is basically the Larry Page of this republic.

  [...]

  Understanding why Hitler was so bad, why Stalin was so bad, is essential to the riddle of the 20th century. But I think it’s important to note that we don’t see for the rest of European and world history a Holocaust. You can pull the camera way back and basically say, Wow, since the establishment of European civilization, we didn’t have this kind of chaos and violence. 

  It’s basically just a greater openness of mind and a greater ability to look around and say: We just assume that our political science is superior to Aristotle’s political science because our physics is superior to Aristotle’s physics. What if that isn’t so?

  When I look at the status of women in, say, a Jane Austen novel, which is well before Enfranchisement, it actually seems kind of OK.

> A lot of your tools reference crows. What’s up with that?

> White: When I got started in this space around October 2022, I was red-teaming with GPT4. Around the same time, a paper called “Language Models are Stochastic Parrots” was circulating, and people were debating whether these models were just regurgitating their training data or truly reasoning. The analogy is appealing, and parrots are definitely known for mimicking speech. But what we saw was that pairing these language models with external tools made them much more accurate — a bit like crows, which can use tools to solve puzzles.

> In the work that led to ChemCrow,1 for instance, we found that giving the large language model access to calculators or chemistry software made its answers much better. So we kind of retconned a little bit to make “Crows” be agents that can interact with tools using natural language.

This is incredibly insulting to crows, who can spontaneously create tools and use bizarre man-made tools with no training. And when crows use tools for problem solving in the lab, the tools are not "solve the problem for me" like a calculator, they require much more creative thinking. What White really means - whether he knows it or not - is that crows are known for being intelligent and he wants to use this for marketing purposes.

I don't think anyone alive today will live to see an AI as smart as a crow, in no small part because AI researchers and investors refuse to take animal intelligence seriously.

The definition is just incoherent! "Sometimes an agent is deterministic and in this case the term only includes manmade tools, other times an agent is an apparently nondeterministic automaton and in this case we can include natural life." It only allows "agent" to be labelled ad hoc, and in particular blurs the distinction between "nondeterministic tool" and "lifeform" in ways that are scientifically unjustifiable. The only people this pointless word game benefits are liars like Sam Altman and Mustafa Suleyman; if people are well-intentioned then these definitions bring nothing but confusion.