Even if legality did matter, the president has criminal immunity for official acts.

Even vanilla minecraft is a far superior experience to NMS. Minecraft's approach to procedural generation poduces more meaningful exploration because its terrain, resources, structures, and building system interact far more deeply with the gameplay than NMS linear number-go-up grind.

Of course, introducing mods makes Minecraft the most compelling entry in the genre by a huge margin, but not necessarily a fair comparison since the combined human effort involved in the minecraft mod ecosystem vastly eclipses what the NMS team could do on their own.

It's incredible to me that every single time there's a new model people scream "singularity" from the rooftops and every time they are wrong.

This is an impressive result, but there is absolutely zero evidence of "the singularity".

It is not reasonable to not believe anything unless there is "evidence" (narrowly construed as an observation incompatible with the negation of some state of affairs). Beliefs have a wide spectrum of characterizations, and not all belief must wait until publicly corroborated evidence is available. Some events defy evidence and we can and should use experience and reasoning to infer unobservable states of affairs.

This is olympic level mental gymnastics to justify believing things without evidence. The double negative with the word evidence in scare quotes is chef's kiss.

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow without "evidence" (again, narrowly construed). We all do. It's only those who abuse the idea of epistemic hygiene who claim otherwise, usually with ulterior motives.

The evidence is the history of the sun rising since time immemorial, as well as the science of physics and cosmology that models the sun's motion with respect to the earth.

Yes, reasoning with models and making inferences are perfectly acceptable forms of evidence. But you can model the world based on ones knowledge and experience and infer when some event doesn't fit the typical pattern, then form beliefs about what that means. Also perfectly fine from an epistemic perspective. The rejoinder "there's no evidence" to a belief based on such an inference does no work.

...obviously it is evidence of the singularity. You're far more likely to see models solving Millenium Prize problems if a singularity is coming than if it's not. One'd have to be doing quite a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise.

Poor reasoning. You could apply the same logic to any improvement in any field of machine learning.

Not every improvement, no - if progress was steady or slowing down over time, that'd be evidence against. Instead we see what looks a lot like an accelerating growth in capability.

I think you are implying that it's invalid to consider every advance to be evidence "for", and I agree - that'd violate conservation of expected evidence. But not considering any advance to be evidence "for" is also invalid, for exactly the same reason. There has to be some news you may hear that'd make you think a singularity is more likely, and "millenium prize problem solved by an LLM" sure seems like one of those.

Nah, it's the species. Corporate greed is near the bottom of the list among the accolades of human cruelty.

No previous era of cruelty has threatened the existence of life itself. Corporate greed is the most hideous, horrific, inhumane era of human culture that has ever been.

It was retaliation by the government that has since been deemed illegal.

A politically impossible outcome that isn't worth hanging our hopes on.

A more realistic approach is legislation that either forbids providers from suspending or otherwise limiting access to any government integrated system or simply forbidding these types of integrations altogether.

> A politically impossible outcome that isn't worth hanging our hopes on.

> A more realistic approach is legislation that either forbids providers from suspending or otherwise limiting access to any government integrated system or simply forbidding these types of integrations altogether.

There's more history in the US of successful legislation aimed at breaking up big companies than at that sort of specific narrow technically-aware well-executed regulation.

The former is blunt force. It's relatively easy to target and make effective. It just needs enough ground-level support to get enough people from both parties on board - and we're seeing some shifts that way in the current Republican mishmash of groups.

The latter needs excellent technical knowledge and resistance to super-sophisticated lobbying and loophole-creation. It's very hard to get right.

> There's more history in the US of successful legislation aimed at breaking up big companies than at that sort of specific narrow technically-aware well-executed regulation

We live in a much different world today than during the trust busting era. Extreme concentration is the status quo of today's economy and it's happening across basically every sector and industry.

Lina Khan as the head of the FTC under the most legislatively prolific Democratic president of the last 30 years was completely powerless to break up anything. Even Trump and an army of partisan DAs that were frothing at the mouth to dismantle Trump's enemies have failed to do so.

Just yesterday Google prevailed against the threat of a breakup of their ad businesses which is perhaps the single most compelling example of anticompetitive abuse by big tech besides maybe the Apple ecosystem.

This trend is only going to accelerate as skilled workers age out of the economy and white collar economic activity aggregates into a handful of massive tech companies.

That's all without factoring in that government quid pro quo is now defacto legal and these companies have very deep pockets for donations.

There are many other factors I could mention but the point is that nobody with any power wants to break up these companies.

> Lina Khan as the head of the FTC under the most legislatively prolific Democratic president of the last 30 years was completely powerless to break up anything.

Only because she was blocked by both Republicans and Democrats who are sold out to the same plutocrats. I agree with the parent that the problem remains very simple and is a matter of balance of powers. Any fine-grained regulation will be simply ignored by those people who are above all laws.

EDIT: Maybe i was a little too lenient to her. I mean, if a politician really wanted to change the status quo, they'd appeal to the public to help change the balance of power, which Lina Khan never did.

What the voters want is of minimal importance. There are near zero politicians that want to break up big tech, and absolutely zero that would be able to actually achieve a break up if they tried. You can see my reply to a sibling comment where I outline why this is the case.

Impossible? Why? Think different, think AT&T.

I'm not a physicist either, but the amount of evidence pointing in the direction of dark matter is extremely significant, it's a little silly to just dismiss all that based on your intuition.

Use signal.

Or twonly :-)

Sounds like RAG to me.

How does it sound like rag exactly? Rag queries a database and injects the results memory doesn’t do this

"text based index" is just another way of saying "database".

No it isn’t? There is no database and no querying for specific words. An llm reads a big ass block of text and determines if any of those lines are applicable, that is nothing like a database being queried

i think you are confusing database with something like mysql

What you label "government bureaucracy" is very often environmental protections working as intended.

One AI company's "bullshit" is another citizen's "clean air and water". Since the AI companies don't care about those negative externalities, the government can act help to mitigate the damage.