It's about the role of technologies in evolution, responsibility versus utilitarian take, etc. It should be developed and discussed seriously, but not in a buried sub-thread.

This makes 100%, right. But how many actually care and act, what are the dynamics?

Regarding the end of centralized broadcasting, one could argue that social networks might actually act as amplifiers of "small" events.

> we are going to be kinda of obsolete in what defined us, as a profession: the ability to write code

Is it a fact, really? I don't think "writing code" is a defining factor, maybe it's a prerequisite, as being able to write words hardly defines "a novelist".

Anyway, prompt writing skills might become obsolete quite soon. So the main question might be to know which trend of technological evolution to pick and when, in order not to be considered obsolete. A crystal ball might still be more relevant than LLMs for that.

It seems this applies to the whole AI industry, not just LLMs.

Let's create "Piaf" to see la vie en rose, the French à la https://codewithrockstar.com/.

> [...] the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) obliges gatekeepers like Google to effectively allow the distribution of apps on their operating system through third party app stores or the web. At the same time, the DMA also permits Google to introduce strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that third-party software apps or app stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system or to enable end users to effectively protect security. [...]

They seem to be on it, but no surprise: it's all about Google's claims for "security" and "ongoing dialogue gatekeepers".

Freedom to use own hardware or software, no.

So, surely those IQ-related tests might be acceptable rating tools for machines and they might get higher scores than anyone at some point.

Anyway, is the objective of this kind of research to actually measure the progress of buzzwords, or amplify them?

"[LLMs] reason using the same type of associative abstract thinking as humans do": do you have a reference for this bold statement?

I entered "associative abstract thinking llm" in a good old search engine. The results point to papers rather hinting that they're not so good at it (yet?), for example: https://articles.emp0.com/abstract-reasoning-in-llms/.

I'm in no way an expert but I feel that today's LLMs lack some concepts well known in the research of logical reasoning. Something like: semantic.

The big majority goes with the comfort of the mainstream, almost by definition.

It's obvious that "chat-control" cannot be effective in its official purpose: there are already and will be many ways to evade surveillance like CSS for those who really want to.

But it might achieve a devastating side-product, the dream of any authoritarian regime: the criminalization of privacy, which would lead to the end of freedom as we know it. "1984" was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

But in a perfect world surveillance is not necessary anyway: that kind of statement is just fallacious rhetoric.

Interesting that this national law was pushed by people in an alliance around Macron: the same team which might sign the opposite for the EU. Just a drop in an ocean of nonsense, from where such a dangerous bill might emerge.

Sadly "docker" is just a synonym for "container" for most people, so the main issue is that most projects only ship a compose file. Hopefully they'll ship quadlet files too, some day.

Alternatively, a public repository for sharing quadlets for popular open source software would be great.

This is a mind boggling recipe for disaster, a worldwide dystopian nightmare coming true with an unprecedented but quite predictable series of consequences. Next step: compulsory installation of CCTV inside every home?