brookst

4 ms·

31.
by brookst 8d ago
They kind of do belong to everyone. The technology and majority of training corpus is available to essentially everyone. The training and inference infra are owned and operated, but I can't see an argument that any machine that process
32.
by brookst 8d ago
Oh I'm sorry, who's forcing you to work without pay?
33.
by brookst 8d ago
Ok, thought experiment: at what point in the past 1000 years do you think the balance of collective versus individual benefit from creative works was at its most fair? > getting things were free was part of sending a message, not monetar
34.
by brookst 8d ago
Fair point. Think of it this way: the scale is more than any human, but it is probably akin to what humanity in general can do.
35.
by brookst 8d ago
> We’re likely looking at a new world where physical and mental work from humans holds much less value. Or, perhaps, we're regressing to the mean after a century where this work was over-valued, because companies like Disney succeed
36.
by brookst 8d ago
I mean I'm producing more and better art and software each month than I used to do in a year. I feel like I'm flourishing because of AI. Tell me I'm wrong?
37.
by brookst 8d ago
Musicians and writers build new works on top off millennia of literary and musical history, then copyright their works and sell it back to us. Is this so bad? If Taylor Swift, consciously or subconsciously, gets an harmonic idea from a 1970
38.
by brookst 9d ago
Not an expert, but doesn’t that produce lower quality results, the same way a 1MP image isn’t lower quality than a 20mp image downscaled to 1MP? (Everything else equal)
39.
by brookst 9d ago
Opus and fable both are pretty judicious about bringing in dependencies, at least for me. They often argue against and and write even decently large modules to avoid pulling stuff in.
40.
by brookst 9d ago
Did you miss the part where I literally said, and I quote “I don’t think Trump changed them”?
41.
by brookst 9d ago
Exactly. Maybe it’s that kind of nuance doesn’t work in public discourse; today’s press would either run “we’re destroying the environment on a gamble” or “we can have AI do carbon cleanup” depending on ideological bias. Or maybe, and I lea
42.
by brookst 9d ago
And that kills 8.5 billion people how?
43.
by brookst 9d ago
Movies are often not completely plausible representations. The question isn’t “how could someone with no rigor imagine that AI would kill us” (for that we have this HN thread). The question is: really thinking about it, with no hand waving
44.
by brookst 9d ago
I know it’s not the point you’re making, but it brings to mind Pol Pot and the horrendous and destructive “the problem here is too much education” thing.
45.
by brookst 9d ago
s/AI/the internet/g The Protestant “laziness == death” thing just doesn’t really hold. Much, maybe most tech exists because someone was too lazy to ship file cabinets / walk 20 miles / carry buckets of water uphill.
46.
by brookst 9d ago
I don’t see how it would head off such accusations. This is post-training, and even it’s data could be pulled from other models or run against other models in realtime. Not saying that’s the case, just that the dashboard does not disprove.
47.
by brookst 9d ago
Do we know what kind of DC US actors are using specifically for training, versus inference and delivery?
48.
by brookst 9d ago
To some degree, sure. Remember “open” AI? I don’t think Trump changed them, but Trump is absolutely a symptom of larger social collapse in the US, and that collapse has affected Altman and Amodei. We’re not even pretending that truth matter
49.
by brookst 9d ago
It’s pretty far. It’s the difference between “study law until you can pass any random bar exam” and “here are 200 legal questions and we’ll drill them, with me correcting and explaining when you get one wrong, until you can pass exactly the
50.
by brookst 9d ago
It is saturated, but that doesn’t mean worthless. Seeing 72% is low-signal, but 30% is still meaningful.
51.
by brookst 9d ago
So we’re back to civil rather than criminal law?
52.
by brookst 9d ago
I guess? The bailey version of that argument is that we should do away with the concept of truth altogether, because some truths are harmful.
53.
by brookst 10d ago
Sure, if it’s believable that the shot was perfectly flat at, what, 2 feet away?
54.
by brookst 10d ago
So, in your view, photography has been fatally flawed since the late 1800’s, and mere mitigation of AI image gen are insufficient if they don’t also solve actors impersonating real people?
55.
by brookst 10d ago
Thought about it and also are bright enough not to fall for the “if a single person dies wearing a seat belt, we should abandon seat belts because they do no good at all” fallacy. It’s almost certainly possible to fool v1 of this system, fo
56.
by brookst 10d ago
Shameless plug for Cordyceps, my MCP server for rhino / grasshopper. Works great, I’m building molds and props and all sorts of stuff: https://github.com/brookstalley/cordyceps
57.
by brookst 11d ago
Cool. If they’re taking literally all of the risk, should they get literally all of the rewards? Nothing for shareholders, nothing for employees? Or do you want capital liability for less than complete benefit?
58.
by brookst 11d ago
Reckless conduct as applied to slow moving corporate planning is an interesting idea but do you really want to go down that path? It basically means anything bad that happens is a criminal indictment against everyone who created the conditi
59.
by brookst 11d ago
You’re taking vicarious liability to new heights that aren’t established and IMO aren’t remotely desirable. What, specifically, did Altman himself “knowingly access”? I don’t think you would at all like where your novel legal theory leads.
60.
by brookst 11d ago
I mean insurance companies profit from bank robberies, and mortuaries profit from murders. I suppose you could look at those as evidence but not remotely conclusive.

More ›