I feel like you are one of the people who feel that AI is just going to be the future with no real problems to anyone who matters. We can’t stop it, we can’t regulate it in any way whatever; and people should just move out of the way, give up and if they can’t find a place in the new world, die already. Artists don’t matter, writers don’t matter and anyone impacted by this new system doesn’t matter. The algorithm is all that matters.

If I thought that, I wouldn't have emphasised the need to sort out the funding issue, and argued that just regulation will be insufficient to solve it.

I think it will cause a massive degree of upheaval. I don't think regulation has any hope in hell of preventing upheaval significant enough that unless a solution is found to ensure better distribution of wealth it will cause violence and uprisings and governments to fall. Not necessarily in and of itself, but in accelerating a process of reducing the monetary value of labour.

I can’t know anything about LLMs, machine learning or anything about this.

I've not suggested anything of the sort.

How you can interpret anything I've written as suggesting I don't think there will be problems is beyond me.

You therefore throw out the idea that bias exists due to tagging systems.

I've done no such thing.

Yes, she is free to be a giant asshole with a persecution complex. And we are free to call her one.

In the case of your example we'd do .map(&:unwrap) in Ruby (if unwrap was a method we'd actually want to call)

Notably, these are not the cases _1 and _2 etc are for. They are there for the cases that are not structurally "call this method on the single argument to the block" e.g. .map{ _1 + _2 } or .map { x.foo(_1) }

(_1 is reasonable, because iterating over an enumerable sequence makes it obvious what it is; _1 and _2 combined is often reasonable, because e.g. if we iterate over a key, value enumerable, such as what you get from enumerating a Hash, it's obvious what you get; if you find yourself using _3 or above, you're turning to the dark side and should rethink your entire life)

Other sources that are public domain or "cheap enough" for OpenAI to simply buy them. Hence my point that OpenAI is already worth enough that they could make a takeover offer for Reuters.

The thing, is realistically it won't make a difference at all, because there are vast amounts of public domain data that remain untapped, so the main "problematic" need for OpenAI is new content that represents up to data language and up to date facts, and my point with the share price of Thomson Reuters is to illustrate that OpenAI is already getting large enough that they can afford to outright buy some of the largest channels of up-to-the-minute content in the world.

As for authors, it might wipe a few works by a few famous authors from the dataset, but they contribute very little to the quality of an LLM, because the LLM can't easily judge during training unless you intentionally reinforce specific works. There are several million books published every year. Most of them make <$100 in royalties for their authors (an average book sell ~200 copies). Want to bet how cheap it'd be to buy a fully licensed set of a few million books? You don't need bestsellers, you need many books that are merely sufficiently good to drag the overall quality of the total dataset up.

The irony is that the largest benefactor of content sources taking a strict view of LLMs will be OpenAI, Google, Meta, and the few others large enough to basically buy datasets or buy companies that own datasets because this creates a moat for those who can't afford to obtain licensed datasets.

The biggest problem won't be for OpenAI, but for people trying to build open models on the cheap.

Because one side creates the situation and is the sole party with the power to end it, and the other side is in an utterly desperate situation stripped of other realistic means of fighting back, and it's unreasonable to hold the oppressed and the oppressor to the same standard because that inherently favours the oppressor.

And because it's wildly hypocritical when most of us live in countries that actively supports the oppressor and takes no step to stop it.

That doesn't mean it's not awful, and a war crime, but the blame lies on Israel for each and every death on both sides as long as they maintain their apartheid regime and their illegal occupation.

Your hyperbole was so idiotic that I took 10 seconds to pipe the contents to "wc" to highlight just how lazy you were before you misrepresented what you reply to, yes. That it was such a chore for you to read 600 words before making up a strawman to reply to does indeed say more than you did with words.

No, you made the false claim that I said it isn't unhealthy. "One of the safest" is not the same as "isn't unhealthy".

If you can't be bothered to read my ~600 words in reply to someone else and not directed at you, that is entirely your choice. Nobody is forcing you to. Neither are anyone forcing you to blatantly misrepresent what I've claimed, however.

"I haven't read this, but let me misrepresent what the thing I didn't read says".

I have not argued it isn't unhealthy. I have argued it's one of the safer stimulants we have, unless you ingest it in a way that is dangerous (e.g. inhalation). That does not mean it's free of downsides, but neither are a whole lot of things we still decide it's fine to use.

Next time maybe try abstaining from replying to something you've not bothered to read.

Well of course not. You weren’t getting the dopamine rush of a large acute dose rushing from your lungs directly to your brain in a matter of seconds.

So in other words, you're saying I didn't pick the right delivery method to get me addicted. Which was my point.

Regardless, the dangers – including ease of addiction – are well-known and are scientifically proven. Your anecdata of one does not change that.

Missing the point: 1) a large part of the addiction for most people is down to delivery, not nicotine itself - something you yourself used as an argument against my anecdote above -, and most of the research focuses on that. 2) the remaining addiction potential of nicotine is real, and proven, but it's also nothing particularly special compared to other things we're fine with seeing the addiction to as ranging from a nuisance (e.g. caffeine) to a problem that doesn't justify prohibition (any more), like alcohol.

My point was not that it's impossible to get addicted to nicotine, but that confusing nicotine vs. nicotine via a given delivery method is not helpful.

The general rate of withdrawal need to be lower if you have a portfolio that is very conservative. That may make sense when you're saving for you yourself and have a low risk tolerance, but it's not needed. That people feel worried enough to do that, though, is a good argument for insurance/state run pension schemes, because they an inherently pay out more since they can smooth out the risks and pay toward the maximum averaged returns.

Average life expectancy in the US is ca 80, a few years above that in most of Europe, and highest in Japan, Macau, Hong Kong, at 84-85 years (this is across everyone - typically there's a 3-4 year spread between men and women, so e.g. Hong Kong is 83.2 for men and 87.9 for women)