Because the goal is to replace you with a machine and to widen the poverty gap. Also because I do not consent to it.
Are you also fine with taking pictures of pretty women on the street (hey, they'd be walking there anyway) and posting them online and farming ad revenue? Or training a model on their likeness for porn?
Every major website including Reddit and Imgur have TOS language saying they can do basically anything they want with content you add to their platforms, including AI training
Sure, what does that have to do with third parties scraping shit and training their models on it? Which is exactly how these ai bros started their empire? These terms of services were updated after the genie was out of the bottle. Claiming otherwise is revisionist.
is a webcam of Times Square, and they've got ads on the page, and they're making money off pictures of pretty men and women on that street. I don't know how okay or not I am with it, but it's the world we live in.
tbh I don't think its a bad argument. There's plenty of things I'd do to be nice to a fellow person that I would Not do for the benefit of a large company.
What they're doing is (IMO) evil and anti-human and I do not want to be part of it
Because AI is going to create a world where only a few hundred trillionaires and a few thousand billionaires exist while everyone else is in desperate poverty.
This isn't going to work so long as WikiData is controlled by admins that misapply the notability criteria to delete information they subjectively consider trivial
I think the next frontier is a a wiki-style, collaborative site, deliberately purposed at storing information for LLMs
Is it bad that my first thought was "that's going to be a huge amount of work and end up with a lot of gaps and blind spots... we should have GPT-4 polulate it!"
I think it could work if each entry has to be peer reviewed by 3 (more?) humans. Although, AIs are better than humans at captchas now, so I'm not exactly sure how that would work either way...
Two problems:
- Incentivising decentralised infrastructure (this solves that)
- Incentivising content creation (completely different issue, will always require a political solution, and cannot be solved by technologists)
These kinds of comments are legally ignorant. I’m always taken aback by these kinds of “but actually” comments on HN that ‘correct’ another user without any regard to how the law would be applied.
I read the persons comment differently: reading between the lines I see them saying that the Chinese government finds other ways to work around the rules in bad faith.
"My map represents the first attempt to map Australian laws, cases and regulations across the Commonwealth, States and Territories semantically, that is, by their underlying meaning."
I think Jade.io has had a go at this, IIRC. This isn't to detract upon your amazing work though, great stuff.
Thank you :). Would you mind sharing what you have in mind? I haven't come across a visualised semantic map of state and federal Australian laws, cases and regulations before.
NVIDIA’s products can colloquially be described as commodities in some contexts, as GPUs from NVIDIA can be interchangeable with GPUs from other manufacturers like AMD. For specific tasks like gaming or basic computing, the brand may not matter as much as the specifications, making them somewhat commodity-like in those scenarios
Whilst this isn’t the traditional economic definition of commodity, speaking loosely, I think it’s fair enough to describe GPUs as a form of commodity. The important thing is what’s being communicated, not the semantic definition. The above comment’s point was pretty clear IMO
> The important thing is what’s being communicated, not the semantic definition. The above comment’s point was pretty clear IMO
But the argument is, that Nvidia should follow a standard valuation model, since their product is a commodity.
Those claims are both incorrect. This either rests on a misunderstanding of what a commodity is, or on a misunderstanding of Nvidias Position in the AI segment.
As it stands at the moment, they are not a commodity in this field, they can not be replaced, and thus you cannot apply a more standard valuation model.
You are stuck on word commodity without understanding why it is important in valuation. What parent is saying some companies have no pricing power since there products can be replaced with close to 0 difference.
Nvidia is not valued as a commodity because now and in near future people expect them to keep their superiority that allows them to charge 30000+ for one card.
> as GPUs from NVIDIA can be interchangeable with GPUs from other manufacturers like AMD
For AI workloads I'm pretty sure they aren't, which is why everyone is trying to buy NVIDIA GPUs.
If they were a commodity there would not be such intense competition for NVIDIA GPU allocations, because they would be easily interchangeable with GPUs from another source.
It can't be if the regulation prohibits building parking for each home, as in this case.
Building housing units without parking just externalizes the problem and makes the whole neighborhood worse. People still need a car, so if they can't have parking they will have to find it on the streets somewhere, which is worse for everyone involved.
I've lived in a neighborhood where apartment buildings didn't have enough parking for residents, it was not pretty. Constant fights over parking, vandalized cars, people circling four hours looking for a spot. Nothing good came out of that.
> This is a good reason to charge appropriately for street parking.
How would that solve it? There still aren't enough spots.
If you do unreserved spaces through parking meters or resident window stickers, people are still stuck doing all the same things (circling for hours, getting into fights).
To solve that you'd need to have reserved street spots so people are guaranteed which spot is theirs. So now you have to staff up enforcement and towing so the spots they reserved is available. But wait.. so we're back to dedicated spots, but in a less convenient and more cumbersome way. So to solve that, just have the apartment buildings themselves provide the spot for each resident. So we're full circle back to where we started.
As long as cars are needed (in the US, they are needed) the optimal solution is for each housing unit to provide it built-in, instead of externalizing the problem onto the neighborhood.
> So if someone wants to live in a home without parking, it should be illegal?
That's a good question, difficult to answer in the general sense.
At the individual level the answer seems very easy. Of course I wouldn't want it to be illegal to live however you want or configure your apartment however you like, with or without parking! You do you.
But what about the next owner? If the very first owner gets to spec the apartment however they like (before it gets built) and opts for no parking that's fine. But later they sell it and the next owner needs a car so now they join the street parking scene. Multiply this by all the units and over time it's a problem.
Because ultimately housing lasts for a very long time. That new building is likely to stand there for a century or more, so those initial decisions of how many parking spots it has vs. units will last for a very long time, far beyond the preferences of the first buyer. So it's not that easy.
> OK, they can pay market rate for street parking.
See previous response for why this does not work. Either the street spots are first come first served which does not solve anything, or they are reserved which creates unnecessary inefficiency.
> Ultimately what I see you proposing is denying people homes because you want to use public land to store your private property free of charge.
I'm advocating the exact opposite.
I'm saying it never works well if residents have to participate in the street parking scene because residents are by definition there every night/day, so they need a dedicated spot. And the optimal way to provide that, is for the building they live in to have a spot for them (which they pay for, in either rent or mortgage).
That's why mandated parking minimums are still the best compromise solution. Anything else just externalizes the problem which is worse for everyone.
> Parking minimums reduce the number of homes that can be built in a given area, thereby reducing the supply of homes, thereby denying people homes.
Yes, of course it does. The goal ultimately is to create livable housing, not just pack the maximum numbers of units into a space without practical considerations. Everything is a compromise.
I mentioned above what happens when you build apartments without enough parking: Constant fights over parking, vandalized cars, people circling four hours looking for a spot.
> You can build parking!
Where?
You can't build parking after the fact into an apartment building. It had to be designed in before construction started. If the building is already done and doesn't have enough parking, it will never have enough parking. You'd have to tear it down and that's too disruptive and expensive, will never get done.
(I am assuming city blocks which are fully built-out already. If there's a bunch of empty land nearby there probably is no parking problem either so this is all a moot point.)
> Just don't force people to build it when price signals indicate housing is a more valuable use of said land.
Capitalism always seeks maximum profit, not a sustainable long term solution. In the absence of regulation the builder will maximize units, which is more profit. The problems that arise when new residents realize they won't find street parking only occur after the builder is done and gone, not their problem. They are very happy to externalize the problem to others.
You can demolish homes to build parking if the price signal is strong enough. Or you can let people who don't need parking live there. Full disclosure, I have no car and enjoy not having parking
> You can demolish homes to build parking if the price signal is strong enough.
You "can", but that's right up there with spherical cows. Let's be serious.
It will never happen that a recently built apartment building gets demolished because they realize in hindsight that it does not have enough parking. That will never happen.
The problem will simply be externalized to the surrounding neighborhood, good luck in the street parking wars.
