“Invested well” is carrying a lot of weight there. The safe money is that you won’t beat the market, and unless we continue to have exponential economic growth forever, eventually that interest will fall off.

I think it’s actually more realistic to hope that we’ll end up in a post-scarcity world in the next century or so, where money is more like Reddit karma — a mild incentive, rather than a necessity.

Ah, I see, I missed that.

The research did, which is a bit different. I don't see why this would be a violation of the TOS though. I don't see anything in there about using model outputs to train other models. The closest would be:

> reverse assemble, reverse compile, decompile, translate or otherwise attempt to discover the source code or underlying components of models, algorithms, and systems of the Services

But that's not the same thing. Training your own model on ChatGPT outputs won't result in anything like the same source code, algorithms, or model weights as ChatGPT.

Almost nobody makes good CEOs, particularly people who can get the job. Founders often can't cope with how the job changes as a company matures (and/or can't speak without putting their foots in their mouths), and "credible to a board of directors" seems to be more correlated with vocalizing the corporate bullshit hidden Markov model than actual sense.

Ladies and gentlemen, witness the wonder of the amazing moving goalpost! Watch in awe as it skips across the stage! How does it do it? What arcane forces have animated this humble object?

The bills to the consumer, adjusted for inflation, aren’t higher. You’re literally just looking at the effects of across the board inflation and saying “look at how much more expensive it got!”

How are you going to start a comment by admitting that you exaggerated, and then reassert the conclusively false thing that you claimed?

And no, you didn't just exaggerate. There literally isn't a trend. Electricity prices have risen and fallen over the years, and it's at a fairly middling point right now.

To find a point where nominal electricity prices were half their current price, you have to go back to the year 2000. Adjusted for inflation, those year 2000 prices were about 14% lower than today's prices. If you want to go all the way back to 1980 and adjust for inflation, the price was almost exactly what it is today.

So no, they absolutely haven't.

I know this probably feels like a nitpick, but I wish instead of saying:

> or that it’s sentient (it’s not),

journalists would instead say:

>or that it’s sentient (nobody actually has any idea what that means),

Every single debate along these lines has this infuriating flaw of people throwing vague words back and forth at each other based on some gut intuition that they don't have the faintest idea how to make any falsifiable statements about.

Not for most, if any users. There's a "plugins" model you can get to through a waitlist, but while there's apparently a first party web plugin being developed internally, it isn't publicly available. Everything you can actually get to is just specific APIs.

Sounds like socialism.

Weird how your link doesn’t mention the plastic straws.

Yeah, that screed has “grip” written all over it.

Listen, plastic straw bans are silly and performative, but try to get some semblance of a grip.

It’s limited for paid as well.

It’s available as a model option with ChatGPT now, although I’m not sure if it’s “Plus” only. It’s just chat, though, no images, and it’s limited to 100 messages per four hours.

Sure, but that’s an entirely different argument.

Yes. A little while back, I had someone use a Computerphile video showing ChatGPT missing on college level physics questions as proof that ChatGPT is incapable of comprehension. The bar at this point has been set so high that apparently only a small minority of humans are capable of understanding.

I don’t know how you want to define “understanding” when talking about a non-sentient LLM, but in my experiments, ChatGPT consistently gets reading comprehension questions from SAT practice tests right, and it’s well known that it has passed multiple professional exams. It’s nowhere close to infallible, but you’re also underselling what it does.

The model does not need to see drawings of a horse to produce a picture of a horse. It needs to see pictures of horses, sure, but those could be photographs, drawings, whatever. As a human, you also would not be able to draw a picture of a horse without ever seeing a horse, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Also, how do you know that you’ve had it explained to you well? Unless you’ve attempted to apply the knowledge, you can only tell if you’ve had it explained convincingly

To clarify, this is not a court ruling. They’re citing court rulings, but the US Copyright Office is part of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

This sounds like you’re confused about how these models work. It’s not just a big database of art that the model is clipping pieces out of.

> However the presumption will be that AI 'assisted' art is not entitled to copyright either.

I would draw the exact opposite conclusion from the USCO correspondence. Note this:

> We conclude that Ms. Kashtanova is the author of the Work’s text as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements. That authorship is protected by copyright.

They’ve specifically said that everything about but the generated images themselves is copyrighted. Assuming that this decision holds up to further scrutiny (which, who knows), an assistive tool is one that combines non-copyrightable generated content with copyrightable human generated elements. With those kinds of tools, the fact that individual elements of the final work are not copyrightable would generally be academic.

Edit: phonetic typo

Also they straight up tell you when you sign up. But people don’t read.

What they're dumping money into now on this front are AI enhanced search engines, which are complimentary to the content they're training on.