Important distinction, thank you. From the article:
the group of affected authors can expect to receive about $19m (£14m).
XLE
joined 1 year ago
I'm not sure if it's clickbait or just the most recognizable thing in their catalog. I've heard of A Court of Thorns and Roses, never heard of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell at all, but Harry Potter is a household name.
On the other hand, the money is being taken from a company that helped bomb Iranian schoolchildren , and has a CEO who desperately wants to do it some more.
~~The recipient doesn't really deserve the payout here, but the people who do will never be rich enough to get the lawyers to receive it. You've got to have (tons of) money to make money...~~
Edit : It turns out the publisher will be giving the proceeds of the lawsuit to the authors, which number in the thousands.
I like this option a lot, but it's way more frustrating to set this as a default search engine on (all?) mobile browsers than it should be.
Not a bad question. If I can tweak it a little:
Why is he getting involved in AI regulation, but only in this specific way?
Because pro-AI lobbyists (including a Silicon Valley cult leader) got to him.
Do you really think that your insults are less insulting if you follow them up with condescension? If you refuse to answer my questions, just say so, instead of being a douchebag.
I answered you twice, "in good faith" as you like to say, and it's clear that's something you're not here in.
AI isn't perfect. But Christ, anybody who points to the problems at AI had better be looking in the mirror and pointing at themselves at the same time.
- Linus Torvalds
https://ondiscourse.com/ai-doomerism-is-a-business-tactic/
Now I’m interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
That AI doomerism is AI marketing.
Now I'm interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I disagree with Yudkowsky in pretty much every way possible, and don't know how you could conclude I agree with him if you saw anything else I posted in this thread. He's like you, he believes AI is inevitable and wants it to be good too.
When I said “the experts” I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies
Interesting how you conflate "expert" with "employee" when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these "experts" never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is... Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I don't like your insincerity with the fake apology, and I don't like the insincerity of refusing to back up your claims.
We can start with the simplest question, which I already asked: Do you consider Eliezer Yudkowsky to be one of your "experts"?
Why does Binance get to enjoy all the legal benefits of being a corporation, and all the benefits of trading cryptocurrency, and none of the downsides of either?