OpenAI and Anthropic are cooked...

​

(https://websterjournal.com/matpat-draws-overwhelming-crowd-at-keynote-event/)

Honestly, I agree with that approach.

You can criticise AI without treating the entire technology as inherently evil. You can acknowledge its flaws without pretending it has no legitimate uses. You can defend artists without attacking everyone who uses AI to create.

AI being capable of producing garbage doesn't mean every AI-assisted creation is garbage. That's judging the tool by its worst outputs rather than examining what someone actually does with it. This is what me and most pros I have talked to believe in how people should handle the technology.

Source: https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-development/blob/master/graphs%2Fpatches_per_release%2Fcves_fixed_per_release.png

AI coding tools are pretty good at finding bugs and make it easier and faster to fix them.

Importantly, security vulnerabilities in new releases seem to stay roughly the same and the change to which bugs count as CVEs was around version 6.8 already.

A billion-dollar corporation uses AI to replace 40,000 employees and optimize the price of a sandwich down to the individual customer's financial desperation and nobody bats an eye.

But some guy running a plumbing business out of his garage uses ChatGPT to write a professional email and suddenly he's unprofessional and not trustworthy.

Apparently small business owners are supposed to spend 14 hours working, come home and personally write every invoice, advertisement, website description, and customer response with their own blood.

God forbid an individual gets access to technology that used to require an entire corporate department.

No. The plumber needs to hire a marketing agency for $3,000 a month. He needs a receptionist, a copywriter, a web developer, and preferably a middle manager to supervise the whole operation.

Otherwise the business isn't authentic.

Meanwhile Walmart is using enough computing power to simulate the birth of the universe to figure out how to squeeze as much profit out of each customer.

In accordance with Rule 9. This person is a public figure with over 155k subscribers on her YouTube channel.

There's either one of two scenarios here. Either she's been grifting the anti's side to draw engagement. Or one of the biggest AI writing detectors cannot be trusted. What do you think is more likely the case?

some of that stuff is so ass idk if i wanna be associated with yall at this point

Like what a fuck is this? Half face, half mask with some glowing eye, and why there is a phoenix in the corner?

I want to add a concrete experience to the conversation about AI and ableism after commonting on this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/s/NnoZaMMzsG

I’m blind. I have central vision loss; that is, I can't see fine detail at all. I haven't been able to read a book for 10 years. Haven't been able to drive for 6. And now, writing the old fashioned way, just as I have done for 30 years, is starting to become difficult.

I also have fourteen novels that have been sitting idle, waiting for publication. One of the biggest barriers has been revision. Writing a draft and being able to reliably work through revisions yourself are very different things. Before ChatGPT, revision wasn’t something I could reliably do independently. Now it is.

Writing - revision, in particular - is a visually intense art form. You're always reading back through the manuscript, trying to find a path forward that will delight the reader. Watching myself slowly lose that capability has been among the hardest parts of my disability journey.

But now, with AI assistance, I can write again.

It also allows me to develop software. I can have a conversation with my code, describe what I want, and work through changes without needing to strain what vision I do have left chasing semicolons in my javascript code.

The same goes for publishing. I can’t use visual layout tools. But I can write code with AI assistance to produce a well laid out design because, before my vision loss, I had years of experience as a layout editor. My first book is now ready for publication. The cover has human-made art, and the book’s design was done entirely through code I wrote with AI assistance.

There are tangible results: my website audience has been doubling about every two weeks for the past three months, and I’m now up to around 400 daily visitors. Work that was sitting unfinished is moving toward readers.

I can describe the stories I want to tell and the things I want to build. The barrier has been getting through tools and processes I couldn’t use independently. Being able to talk through the work has opened up possibilities I didn’t have before.

There’s room to criticize AI and discuss its costs. I also want those conversations to include disabled people who use it to get work done that we previously couldn’t do ourselves.

When I talk about AI as an accessibility tool, this is what I mean: I can finally revise my books, build software, and prepare my work for publication.

ETA: Lots of folks in the comments not knowing that 1) blindness is a spectrum, and 2) only 30% of the blind/low vision population is fully non light-sensitive. I have friends with RP who see perfectly 20/20 through a tiny pinhole. They're still blind, and part of the blind community.

I am gonna be flamed for this but please people just stop saying being anti is ableist. It's more ableist to assume a disabled person can't make art without a machine doing it for them. It also does not change the fact that you just outsourced an idea to a machine you don't want to credit. Just ask an artist to do a piece for you. At least then your dime goes to a person making a living rather than a huge corporation.

Also before commenting "typical anti" or some unproductive crap, stop and think about how completely pointless it is.

Edit: There is clearly some context missing from this thing. When I wrote this, it was pretty late at night and I was steamed from an experience that day. It was hurried and pieces of a good argument were missing. I am sorry about that, I usually put more effort into these things. With that established, I want to reframe my original argument.
There are dozens of tools available for disabled artists. You can create art with anything and with any medium. I am not saying it is easy, I am saying it is possible and the disabled art community has been doing so for as long as art has existed. Is AI a tool for disabled artists? Maybe if they use it to refine lines rather than generating a whole image for them.

Furthermore, if anyone wants to use AI for their personal recreation, be my guest. The thing I want to get at is that for literally anyone, disabled or not, AI art is not your OWN art. Whether AI art is art is beyond this discussion, but it is not your own art, you did not create it. A machine create it. That is that. You have no finished work, you have no history with the piece of art. It is just a machine that makes things by using correctional gradients to refine images to the minimum threshold of error via reference to the images of thousands of actual artists. If you ask AI to create something, it takes a randomly seeded canvas and refines the lines and colors to create something with the least variability to the thousands of images of that thing.

Go head and try it if you want. Go onto google and create something that has limited assets (such as a specific scientific diagram or a niche game like pizza tower) and it will create something strikingly close if not a direct copy of someone's work. I am not a computer expert, I know this, but that is disturbing to me, especially if I went on to sell this to an art gallery. Taking the spots of some real artists because I want to make money on something I took two minutes to make.

I used to be anti. I used to hate the data centers. Then I started researching. I'm well aware of the dangers, and there are many ways in which it can go wrong. My take is that this is the next step in human discovery. This invention is so much bigger than any other. The potential good outweighs the risk.

I feel this is coming anyways, people are rushing to build it. I think that those building it have done a TERRIBLE job of establishing buy-in with the public. One of the things that changed my way of thinking is how I view the data centers. I view it as a brain for earth. Literally, a brain for our planet. And the way I see it, we aren't even that deep into the singularity, and people have no idea how big this will be as time goes on. I think the divide between pro and anti AI will continue to grow, and our stance on this will be hotly debated by many, and our stance will help define us much like some others do with religion or political views. I realize that I'm much happier going through life with optimism and hope. I think that mankind has made a mess of the world and I'm ready for something smarter to run things. I guess in a way I'm choosing to trust it. And I get it, there are bad things going on but I choose to trust that future versions will find better ways to identify and correct any rogue behavior. Mankind is smart enough to build this thing to the point where it reaches RSI, but not smart enough to FULLY protect us from alignment issues. It's my hope that the AI fixes alignment somehow. Whether it's the worst mistake ever or the best invention ever, or something in the middle....this is an amazing time to be alive. Think about it, all of human invention has brought us to this point. We are giving our planet a brain. It freaks some people out, but I am choosing to hope for the best and really just kind of enjoying the show.

I think the world is handling this whole thing wrong. I think all nations should be working together on this and ensuring we have a model that serves the interest of all humans, but this all goes back to humans screwing everything up. I've just had it with such incompetence. Maybe we will have a world government once AI runs things. That can work. Abolishing money maybe? Everyone's needs met so that nobody needs money? All disease cured? Help us live longer?

What are your thoughts?

In today's filing with the SEC, Anthropic warned potential investors of what it sees as a very real existential threat, acting directly against its own financial interests by telling everyone reading the filing that are likely to go to Hell.

In fact, it both tells people that investing in Anthropic is the only way to prevent personal damnation, AND that investing might not be enough.

A company already known for using scare tactics and presenting itself as a savior has now used the most important document it's ever released—one that people have been anticipating to an extreme extent—to harm as many people as possible.

This is legitimately unhinged, no matter where you stand on the AI thing, IMO

Q:

Generative AI is advancing rapidly, lowering the barriers to creating things. At the same time, this raises the question of where human talent can truly shine in game design. How do you view generative AI and games as a form of culture?

Shigeru Miyamoto:

…That’s a big question. Let me see.

Computers came along during my generation. Before that, people typed on typewriters. Then word processors came along, and so on. Tools have continued to evolve, one after another.

For example, designers used to learn something called lettering in school—the art of drawing letters beautifully, like the lettering on a poster. If you could do that, you could already be called a designer. Similarly, if you could take a typeface that was popular overseas, adapt it to Japanese, and arrange it into a layout, you might be called a designer simply because you could do that.

But as computers continued to evolve, so did word-processing software. Eventually, computers could copy text from somewhere else, pull in images, and render lettering beautifully for you. As these technical and practical skills continued to advance, things like a person's sense of layout and their individual design abilities finally began to come to the fore.

So even if a husband is a designer and his wife takes care of the household, it's entirely possible that his wife actually has a better eye for design than he does. I sometimes worry about whether that might be true in my own case, too. (Laughs.) As things like this happen more and more, the tools change the way we work.

That's exactly what's happening with AI. We've always made a distinction between creating something and doing the work.

When you set out to create something, you first put together the overall structure, right? Then you start arranging things toward a particular goal. Everything that comes after that is the actual work: filling in the gaps, polishing things up, and so on.

The tricky thing is that the work itself is enjoyable. There's a sense of satisfaction that comes from making something, isn't there? (Addressing the reporters.) For writers and all of you here, too.

But what worries me is that people can become so satisfied with the work itself that they start mistaking that satisfaction for having created something good. That's what I'm afraid of.

So, in that sense, the more AI takes care of all kinds of tasks for us, the more opportunities we all have to think seriously about what it really means to create something. I think that's a very good thing.

Looking back at design history, there must have been plenty of designs that emerged simply by copying existing work. But those designs don't really stand the test of time, do they?

What makes a design endure is that an individual sets out to design something with a clear intention. The computer then helps them carry out the work. That's the underlying structure.

No matter how far technology advances, that basic principle will remain—although, well, who knows? AI might eventually end up doing absolutely everything in that process, too. (Laughs.) But for now, I think there's still plenty that we humans can do.

• Source: https://www.ndw.jp/nintendo-interview-261023/#i-6

https://openai.com/index/building-scientific-understanding-with-academic-communities/

The Kakeya conjecture…Implications in:

Medical imaging, Earthquake and geological modeling, and sound and communications

Exponential Time Hypothesis being false (the huge one)…implications in:

Computer engineering and software, logistics and optimization, biological and pharmaceutical research, and lol Artificial Intelligence development itself (when the techniques behind this discovery become practical, an AI system might search larger solution spaces, verify more possibilities, or solve certain constraint problems with fewer resources)

More efficient software and engineering tools.

Better scheduling and allocation of limited resources.

Faster verification of increasingly complex computer systems.

Improved computational methods in scientific research.

More capable AI systems for certain reasoning tasks

Quantum chromodynamics and the Standard Model: Giving fundamental physics a rigorous mathematical foundation

Im gonna leave this one to the mathematics and math subreddits. They are excited in ways that I can’t properly convey because I lack the technical knowledge and cannot verify any ai outputs personally. So I’ll direct you to either the “math” subreddit or the “mathematics” subreddit.

But I will say this. In 2027, you’ll have these discoveries every three days in just about every technical field of math, biology, physics, and machine learning.

I noticed the NFT comparisons have completely vanished in 2026. The economic bubble predictions are still somewhat present but I think their presence has slightly diminished too. That said, comparing AI to NFTs may well be the worst tech prediction in history but I'm not seeing much if any accountability.

Sceptics of the tech's capabilities should be thoroughly discredited at this point. Why take any of their analyses or predictions seriously given their history of being incorrect about virtually everything regarding this technology?

Korea, is where AI labeling and watermarks are mandatory by law. And has the communities that self-regulation works.

As a Korean person. I barely see any conflicts, arguments, and ragebaiting nonsense in my homeland community. Because since AI contents and Human contents are separated and acknowledged as different aspect, and has purpose, we just mind our own businesses.

Unlike "Break pencils to exterminate pencilslop" nonsense I've seen in North American communities.

Speedrunning Idiocracy and turning our collective minds into absolute pudding.

If your logic is that, since this is a shared matter, your opinion should be taken into account, then that implies you should take their opinions into account as well.

You might say that the majority is on your side, but in that case, it automatically becomes a question that the majority has to agree on, it’s no longer just your own personal assessment, so to speak.

We have access to a tool that can explain complicated subjects, help us understand our emotions, teach us new skills, challenge our perspectives, and turn ideas we struggle to express into something meaningful.

Yet one of the biggest questions we should be asking is whether we're using AI to develop ourselves or slowly teaching ourselves that we don't need to think for ourselves anymore.

I don't think AI is something we should automatically fear, and I don't think we should blindly trust it, either. There's a lot of potential here, and I believe people can use it to genuinely improve their lives.

But the way we use it matters.

There's a difference between asking AI to help you understand something and asking it to do all your understanding for you. There's a difference between using it to organize your thoughts and letting it decide what you should think. There's a difference between using it to improve your writing and losing confidence in your ability to express yourself without it.

The real question isn't whether AI is good or bad. It's whether we're becoming more capable because of it, or more dependent on it.

It’s in the title, really. I am getting downvoted for this, one-hundred-percent.

You use it for what you don’t love doing, you keep doing the part you like.

I started staunchly anti.

I’ve landed at not wanting to use it, and not giving two shits if anyone does.

Tools help us with drudgery.

We need gyms cause we need to exercise and ever kind of built a world where it’s not naturally built.

We’ll need to do that with cognition.

I’m excited to see what someone creates with it that truly helps us as people.

It’s often the thing we struggle with most.

As an Artist, the creative step has no rules.

Was wrong of me to ever try to gatekeep.

No one’s Artist enough to stand that watch.

Sorry just a ramble but wanted to share, because I’ve struggled with this shit all year.

I’m an Ai free artist, who is ready to see what this newest form in its infancy can truly do.

We’re at the dusk of an age, but the dawn of another.

I’ll say this last bit for writing though.

Writers write, and editors edit.

I can’t and won’t read a wall of text, and I’m always grasping for the voice.

To me, it’s about connection to the person behind the work.

Leave your mark, and I’ll find it.

Happy Monday All