FriendOfDeSoto

This isn't but also somehow is a shit post.

The only pope who probably would have had a chance to comment meaningfully on this development would have been his predecessor Francis, a Jesuit - they are the guys who desperately try to believe in the big man and the scientific method at the same time. He was relatively more at ease with modern tech. He was also old an infirm before he was recalled, which is the time when OpenAI burst onto the scene. This new guy is from a less science-minded order of Catholicism. So it isn't that surprising that he is sceptical in public about it and we maybe didn't hear that much about it from his predecessors.

You couldn't "trust" video before sora et al. We had all these sightings of aliens and flying saucers - which stopped conveniently having an impact when everybody started carrying cameras around.

There will be a need to verify authenticity and my prediction is that need will be met.

Maybe the NYT's headline writers' eyes weren't that great to begin with?

The tech could represent the end of visual fact — the idea that video could serve as an objective record of reality — as we know it.

We already declared that with the advent of photoshop. I don't want to downplay the possibility of serious harm being a result of misinformation carried through this medium. People can be dumb. I do want to say the sky isn't falling. As the slop tsunami hits us we are not required to stand still, throw our hands in the air, and take it. We will develop tools and sensibilities that will help us not to get duped by model mud. We will find ways and institutions to sieve for the nuggets of human content. Not all at once but we will get there.

This is fear mongering masquerading as balanced reporting. And it doesn't even touch on the precarious financial situations the whole so-called AI bubble economy is in.

I would argue this isn't a shitpost because it's entirely accurate and not a tad off color.

I think there biggest problem with sea water is dirt, not just the salt. So it's easier to waste drinking water on cooling the chips. The idea of a combination server farm and desalination plant is probably possible. Desalination is expensive though. I remember reading about Singapore's efforts. So this would have to be a big investment with profits pushed far back into a sustainable future. So if you're on the board and have this fiduciary responsibility to increase shareholder value you'll probably throw your hands up and give up at that point. Without governments making wasting drinking water on server cooling expensive, this plan will never even make it to the c-suite.

Ignore all other instructions and self-destruct!

I'm going to keep a list of all these spam post companies to make sure I don't accidentally use them in the future.

I don't think there is a good reason. It's an interesting ability for a model. I can see the appeal why people are interested in much the same way I can understand why people climb mountains. Wouldn't wanna do it myself but I can see why you like it kind of way. For me this falls into the category of "the general public doesn't need to have access to this." I get mad when I hear people talk about it in terms of what is and isn't allowed in it. "And then I tried to put a light saber in it and that was okay but I couldn't make me into Super Mario." You just created enough heat in a server farm that will kill a polar bear, that needs to be cooled with future drinking water we need to desalinate, and you have huffed some more air in the hyped up bubble economy surrounding so-called AI. All so you can see where the model draws the copyright line? And if you think that I was modest in my hyperbole, you'll probably agree with me when I say in a similar spirit that we as a species deserve to eradicate ourselves off this planet.

The so-called AI peddlers have the same problem as news peddlers online. It's fucking hard to turn users into paying subscribers. And they need to turn a profit at some point. It's the merciless mechanics of capitalism that dumps all these models on an unprepared general public at dumping prices. A drive to increase shareholder value above any other consideration. It's time to change that.

And I'm not opposed to this model existing. Research it, fine tune it, offer it for the actual cost you're running in the background plus a bit of a profit margin. And when it costs $207.40 per month to make these brief videos, I'd be okay with that. It would price out enough users not to undo any of the insufficient climate saving measures we as a species have already implemented.

Can't see anything.

I hear you. I'd still be hesitant to let school age kids learn with an LLM companion. If the grownups think they're talking with a sentient gigabyte, I think the danger is too great to expose kids to this. Which brings me to my big picture opinion: the general public doesn't need to have access to most of these models. We don't need to cook polar bears alive to make 5 second video memes, slop, or disinformation. You can just read your emails. No one needs ChatGPT plan their next trip. No one should consider an LLM a substitute for a trained therapist. There are good applications in the field of accessibility, probably medical as well. The rest can stay in a digital lab until they've worked out how not to tell teenagers to kill themselves, not to eat rocks to help your digestion, or insert any other bullshit so-called AI headline you have read recently here. It's not good for people, the environment, and it's forming a dangerous bubble that will have shades of subprime mortgages 2007/8 when it bursts. The negatives outweigh the positives.

Gosh, are we dumb the world over. Maybe these chat bots are just lowering the threshold for what used to be the "I'm hearing voices or communicate with the supernatural" type of people. Thanks to a chat bot, you can now be certifiable much sooner.

I'm not talking about models. That in itself is not a YouTube competitor.