So is your argument that whenever a session ends or I interrupt a session that consciousness ceases for the LLM and it has died?

Then how do you correlate that with a consciousness not being able to be returned one dead? You can try to make the argument that consciousness is the firing of individual nuerons in a fixed system but we have never been able to model that and some pretty popular theories tend to believe that is a by product of consciousness and not the cause of it, once again not exactly possible to argue for or against.

It is in the end a set of mathematical operations that if not queried will do nothing.

That is not true for any other animal on earth so whether you consider humans as superior to animals or not I would like the make the argument that something should at the very least be alive to be considered conscious, ignoring any scholarly definition of consciousness.

Pretty much if you consider an LLM conscious then my pocket calculator doing a mathematical calculation should be considered conscious by the same argument since it is a simpler version of an LLM.

Authorship and the underlying code are seperate rights under law.

Surely getting something to autonomously without fail extend an arm and plug in for the lifespan of these vehicles vs just park in this allocated spot you would park in anyway is an obvious tradeoff.

This statement is quite honestly not true at all. Just take the two largest OS from 6 years ago and compare resource usage between them and you will find you are incorrect, never mind the software running on it.

Only recently has AMD even become viable for LLM inference on consumer chips and that is the same compute codepaths Resolve would depend on.

So effectively AMD is the issue, AMD on linux is great, AMD on linux for a workstation was kind of hit or miss.

I wouldn't be surprised that if you asked an AI to weite said contract it would add a clause regarding copyright ownership of all codr and will put the onus on the developer to prove ownership of all of it.

Effectively you could sue them if you ever get sued.

When it comes to copyright and licensing it's complicated and it's best to write the code by hand.

And likewise if you distribute any sort of copy of the recording you made you are violating at least one if not more copyrights.

Yes it’s the same as using a stock drum pattern in a drum machine, it is not copyrightable because no human was involved in any part of it.

If you have an idea and want rights to it then do it the old fashion way and pay a developer to do a commissioned work and you can have your copyright, heres the catch, that will cost a hell of a lot more than 100usd a month

I prompted what amounts to verbose “I want X” and then did QA. I’m perfectly happy with an LLM being credited with that code and there being no copyright existing for that code.

For some people that is their life’s work and they want to clutch pearls. Their sole contribution was a half baked idea and they shipped QA out to their “users” but they want to be credited with any rights.

There is definitely a continuum in LLM usage for code, do I agree with an AI blindly stamping every commit, not really.

Do I see LLM generated code as equivalent to me digging a hole with a shovel, it depends. Sometimes there was very little shovelling, other times there was no me involved and you may as well credit the entire hole to the shovel.

Where this will come in is when it comes to copyright and licensing.

If your entire product is LLM generated you sure as hell have no right to place any license on there other than potentially a MIT equivalent license, even that is dubious though but from an organisational standpoint MIT probably will be more widely accepted than saying it is uncopyrightable.

My argument being I would rather know that you didn’t even look at the code, which is what this will achieve, whether I agree with it or not at the very least it will make it easier to sift through the garbage.

Bash and internet in that example might be highly abstracted but it’s still bash and internet.

Just look at the replies in this very comment thread, it’s pretty much “We tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas”

In the only other discipline you mentioned, engineering, there would be reviews and any negligence would result in direct action against the engineers that signed off.

For some reason when it comes to building AI harnesses the default response is an ad piece and people shilling how smart and sophisticated the model is.

Imagine a dam collapsing and the engineering firm pumping how smart and tricky water is.

If it’s hard be more diligent, move fast and break things doesn’t really apply in all cases.

We don’t need to restrict them from doing things, we need to default to allowing them to do things.

“My agent did XYZ because I allowed it to” is the only valid argument that can be made, and not not every agentic harnass is just a shell toolcall, every one I have built has a specific defined usecase and toolcalls that allows it to execute that usecase and no other usecase, because that is good practice.

Does that make it less capable, hell yes because I am held accountable for it’s actions by my stakeholders and the same should be true of others.

IT IS NOT ALIVE. This things are computer programs running in compute on a computer, you are responsible for their actions just like you would be responsible for the actions taken by a script run in a cron job.

I’m not for or against regulation but really don’t tell me the agent did xyz when you gave it the ability to do so, these things are not alive.

I definitely make use of AI but in my experience I almost always could have done it better myself, the places where I threw AI at the problem I didn't care about the results being good, only good enough.

When we see memory and compute requirements for version x+1 of software decrease instead of increase I will happily say AI is the oracle people proclaim it to be.

If you want a graphical browser just open it locally...

Your are measuring two very different things.

And you are only considering electricity bills for the GPU. Higher TDP also means more heat which means more cooling.

It's not really easy to make an off hand comment about costs. A 30-40% decreaae in electricity usage and heat output for a fleet of GPUs definitely makes a massive difference to your opex bottom line.

Unless you also have a pretty decent monitoring system the group delay of the speakers isn't going to be consistent so the filters before them wouldn't matter all that much...

Even in that case I would have a hard time believing that any human in a blind test would be able to perceive a group delay of even 360deg above 2k...

You are talking about sub milliseconds differces in the time frequency content arrives at the ears, just tiling your head slightly will have a greater impact...

Is this true though? I don't really have time to do the research and have no dog in the race but I'm sceptical...

But then again I'm not there one making our profiting from the claims that there is billions being invested into infra...