Yeah I agree with this. The mass media combined with social media is going to make it even harder over the next 4 years to know what's real and what isn't. We really need to train ourselves to look empirically at the evidence and form our beliefs based only on facts. I think this is not so much "onlookers" freaking out, but rather a massive propaganda machine freaking out.

Because it's political, has no place here on HN, and should be flagged.

"Because it's political" is facile. You propose banning stories about:

* H1B visa legislation

* How internet traffic metadata is collected by governments

* Biological science if it somehow refers to evolution, unusual chromosome mixes, or embryonic development.

* GNU/GPL/free-software efforts

* Encryption

And Much Much More!™

Most things are at least a little bit political--or can be made political by someone who makes it their politics--that it amounts to to a heckler's veto.

I don't make the rules here on HN:

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

Isn't that precisely what the article said?

Kind of, but not really. My point is a bit further than the particular case they are focusing on. My point is that since Musk is part of the executive now and runs X any and __all__ censorship might be unconstitutional.

He doesn't have to say you are committing a crime to be interfering with your free speech. If an automated system blocks your account on X because you violated whatever terms of use, it might be a case of Musk violating your constitutional rights.

So for example if someone posts a bunch of porn on X it might be unconstitutional for X to take it down.

The same might also be true about Truth Social. Since the president controls* it.

*I don't know the extend of control he has.

What amazes me about Google’s AI results is how often they are blatantly incorrect. I think most of us here on HN are above average in terms of critical thinking, but I often think to myself how many people are seeing these results, taking it as truth, and walking away that much dumber or worse - spreading this misinformation among their friends and colleagues. Google could not care less. They just want to defeat the threat from other LLMs.

>Where is OpenAI going to have substantial proof to claim that their outputs were used ?

I assume in their API logs.

Hilarious. That article was written in 2021. We call that moving the goalposts.

It claims to do what he describes.

Most software is useful because a large number of people can interact with it or with each other over it. I'm not so certain that one-off software would be very useful for anyone beyond very simple functionality.

Yeah they're setting this up to ban it. Crazy that they think this kind of approach will work in any way. Banning H100s didn't work, and actually pushed them to innovate. Now someone has found a more efficient way to train a model and they decide the best way forward is for the US not to benefit from access to it? This is clear evidence of collusion between OpenAI and the US Government to disadvantage competitors. Beyond that, it will never work. If they need to be reminded of just how little power they have to control the distribution of open source models, I think we would all be happy to enlighten them.