Why would that be any metric for the 99.9% of drivers that need something like that perhapd twice in a decade and shouldn't base their purchasing off that?
> I don't understand why they would want to remove their code instead of wanting it to live on and further help more people through AI.
They do explain that in the post: because of the missing reciprocity. They didn't do it so OpenAI could profit off other's work, but to build a community with others. It's a pretty common motivator for humans.
How does removing their code help anyone? It barely makes the tineist bit of difference to Open AI, if any that's detectable. They aren't the only one's helping with that kind of code. "But it's the principle of the thing." Ok, well if it makes you feel good but that kind of self-centeredness belies your stated desire to help people.
edit: I think what bothers me is it seems like a Luddite reaction of someone who resents progress they don't approve of and want no part of it
I want to say that there’s a missing component that a lot of people miss when it comes to protest. Visibility means nothing if target doesn’t care. The goal of protest isn’t visibility , it’s to convince a target into doing what you want, where visibility is used as a tool to embarrass the target into submission. If the target has no shame, then you can protest all you want, they won’t care.
In the 1960s If the US wasn’t in a cold war and didn’t care that they were perceived as racists , The Civil Rights Movement would probably have to moved towards the Malcom X direction than Kings.
If it's a public good, then it's a public good. So whoever wants to use it according to the license it's fine.
If something is produced where the author is upset afterwards when this good is not used in the way he/she intended to, than it's the problem of the author in the first place to have choosen the wrong license.
In which case they can't stop people using the outputs of their LLMs to create new ones. But I guess it'll need to be decided in court, and their plan is to achieve dominance (or enough of a lead to guarantee it, which is the same thing) before others start trying.
I hope you mean all the theoretical physicists working on the high energy theories of physics, because 30% is a sadly high figure even for that subfield. If 30% of all theorists would actually be of no use to any other physicists, that would be horrendous.
It is enhanced , by a lot, by technology, though. It's pretty damn common that a new technology enables a different quantity of something so much that it effectively is a different quality of interaction.
Don't greyed out comments mean someone is downvoting you? What's going on in this thread, this is the second comment of yours that's factually far better than the preceding one but greyed out.
I agree with you, quantum ai has only ever been people shouting "quantum" at black box neural nets, as if that had ever produced a viable algorithm yet...
>Historically even in absolute monarchies (where you would think power relations have been settled would be paralyzed by internal strife, infighting clans etc.)
This isn't surprising at all given that "absolute monarchy" was more of a marketing term than a description of reality.
England, which rather decisively cut off their monarchs' pretensions at absolute power, was far more centralized than whatever the fuck the different parlements (sp?) of France or the Spanish cortez were doing during the absolutist age.
The criminal was a) condemned, so organized state violence and b) brought over by the entire village, so a group of people. Not an individual outburst of violence, then.
The group of people trying to head-butt the chicken to death are playing a sport. Often enough to at some time add trumpets to it.
It's not only the Asian workers! They also go to great pains to make sure the people mining the basic resources, for example in the Congo or in Peru, are paid more fairly than usual. That combined with pretty much what you said makes the price easily worth it for me.
reply