> It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts.

Well that's interesting.

This would be unprecedented access to user data, enabling the most complete user profiling ever.

Ad companies, like Meta and Google, are going to spend huge amounts of money getting agents ready, because there will be a ridiculous amount of money behind all the data they're going slurp up, and the profiles they'll build for you.

Unless, Apple can figure out how to keep the leaches, that have consistently proven to be so, with court cases for receipts, at bay.

How exactly are they disadvantaging themselves? Perhaps expand on that opinion a bit, and the data/assumptions you're making in forming it.

My naive assumption is that they're going to do what everyone is doing: make tooling that lets you swap in any model.

I don't think it's fair to assume incompetence, on their part. I think it's much safer to assume they're doing what's best for them, and it's very clear to them what's best (money, support, etc).

LLM are a dream come true for these curious types. They'll only be accelerated by them. I don't think there's any real "loss" out there, just a bunch of people that don't care boing things easier. Good for them, good for the curious people. Net win.

With programming, I've always been in the later: it's a tool that allows me to do what I actually love, which is problem solving, system level thinking, and providing some nice solution to that problem, that happens to be through software.

So, I have an absolute blast with AI, because it helps do the more boring bits. And, seeing my non-programming colleagues get excited to see their vibe coded ideas become reality has been so much fun.

I'm genuinely curious to hear the perspective of someone anti-AI, who works in software. Perhaps the impending doom/skill shift of our profession?

> Any dissolved gasses or moisture can usually passively sort themselves out due to their differing masses, but again, not in microgravity.

This is a solved problem with the ECLSS system [1], required from humans releasing ~3.3 lbs of water per day, and exhaling gases that must not accumulate or form dead zones, and normal VOCs scrubbers [2] due to most modern materials releasing them.

I suspect it would be more of a "how many extra filters do we send" type problem and cycling the collected water a couple more times.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13640...

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-concentrations-o...

Wouldn't all paint works well in microgravity? If it didn't, I would think you wouldn't be able to apply it to your floor, walls, and ceiling, with the same paint.

There are definitely cognitive feedback loops: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11903256/

Is your argument that, because they're external to the Llm, rather than integrated, they don't count, not even in a practical sense?

I think the result of the system is all that's important. Where/how it's implemented doesn't matter for practical results.

If the argument here is that LLM don't have this built in, you should know that nobody has a practical use for plain LLMs these days. Nobody uses them this way, except for debug. All interesting use is through some kind of harness, with all sorts of systems bolted on. I think these conversations are only meaningful in this "agent" context that people actually use LLM, where they stop when they think they're done.

LLM don't have a some self contained loop, like we do, sure. Who cares though. The actual AI system that we use every day definitely do.

I'm not sure I understand. How do you do it?

In my thought process, I quite literally stop myself, and say "ok, think about what you just said" to check myself. I literally initiate that loop. If I don't, then I'm not using my own mental agency, and just using my firm coded priors.

I will say that I do seem to have a stop, what you said is wrong logic check voice that pops up without me initiating it. But, it's unreliable, and not too much different than all the content monitoring system used for the streaming clients, that will terminate with "content violation" immediately after the "incorrect" words are sent. I don't think integration is important, just the behavior of the overall system.

Your own long term memory is the orchestration of systems that make it long term.

I don't think physical integration within one contained is relevant to system level behavior.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroanatomy_of_memory