- The bad press was because the initial public release on GitHub did not implement most of the things seemed like they're implemented, (Rust like memory safety etc.)
- Over time it actually saw contributions from a lot of people and is kind of decent now, be it not as polished as Go, Rust, D etc.
- It is super easy to use, so kind of attracts an audience.
The bad press was because after some people tried to call them out for not shipping features that were claimed in the release, those people were banned from further contribution/commenting on github.
If there's anything Flock does that Axon doesn't, it's only because Axon doesn't have people smart enough to do it yet. Once the funding shifts from Flock to Axon, they'll hire the people who can make it happen, especially if enough money shifts that they can pilfer the exact same engineers.
The police want the capability. Flock just happens to temporarily have the better technology.
Axon Fusus AI is very much similar to what Flock offers. Why are you talking about body cameras to make it seem like I am comparing Flock with simple body cameras?
Does Axon retain the data it is collecting? If so, even if they have no plans to use it like Flock does, those plans can change, sometimes even without the company's blessing. They sound like the lesser evil right now, but the core issue that goes well beyond Flock, Axon, and similar companies is that if data is collected and retained, someone will find leverage to use it for their own purposes.
I agree with you re Gamers Nexus, but honestly I'd rather have Gamers Nexus than not anyways.
> Saw another video where a big channel talks about why TVs are so cheap now, and they then explain it that it's because they sell your data. In the real world, the selling data bit, ACR, and so on
> is absolutely tiny dollars business. TVs are cheap because massive factories are pumping out these almost entirely plastic products in enormous numbers,
Right, and Windows Recall is not technically spying on what you're doing etc. etc.
It seems to me like you're being pedantic but essentially end up seeming like shady corporate practices are fine with you over somewhat inaccurate claims that nonetheless point to a real problem?
Yes, TVs aren't cheap because of (only/primarily) ACR but the points stands that ACR shouldn't be a thing on a TV I fully paid for and nobody but me, who paid for the TV, should 'own the glass'.
For example he got into a spat with the Department of War as if he cared for how his AI could be used during war and yet said he's fine with Claude targeting a girl's school in Iran.
That's apart from the general fact that he continues to race towards the very thing he claims he's afraid of, because that's where his net worth comes from.
> Would you go to the weapons manufacturer and try to hold them culpable for the strike?
Yes, depending on the level of autonomy of the weapon, how it was being marketed etc. If it was being sold as an 'AI' that is supposedly very smart so who's a mere mortal to question it, then yes.
I would of course hold the human culpable too, but this is why precisely even selling Claude for military use is immoral. The way the US conducts war means there's always a need for more targets. More and more targets, quickly. If the goal then is to hit as many targets as possible then each 'review' of a LLM suggestion is going to be more and more sloppy than the last one. If there's no 'AI' suggesting targets then the list is forced to go via more human review by the very nature of humans compiling the target list.
It's the same as using a LLM for code; the vast majority of programmers do not understand everything they're accepting, but they'll accept as long as it 'looks correct' and only examine more closely after something doesn't work, (in the military use case - after a strike).
LLMs are unreliable for anything more than reciting jokes, let alone picking targets. So yes, absolutely.
It's the same as Facebook being held liable for causing teens harm; they did not force any teen to use it and yet they knew what would most likely happen if they did.
i dont think he said it in those words, but the acceptable terms of use is that humans stay in the loop for picking targets.
so, claude suggesting killing a bunch of children, and then hegsdeth approving the strikes is perfectly acceptable.
claude putting a bomb in a girls school, and then lying to an operator that it actually gives ice cream an cookies, and the operator clicka the button would also be acceptable?
As someone who would at one point listen to this, Sam Harris is unfortunately someone incapable of even attempting to not let his ideological biases compromise his thinking.
I am pretty sure you haven't tried it yourself. I am also pretty sure the software you mention is significantly more expensive or at least not open source.
Which makes me pretty sure yours was a useless comment.
> No need for snarky "but ours is foss smugface" comments.
Oh? So you opened the discussion with your hugely snarky, flamebaity comment, it backfired and now it doesn't feel so good? You're allowed to post such comments, but nobody else is?
I use and pay for DaVinci Resolve Studio on Linux myself, so yes I have tried them and yes, they're obviously more feature packed and polished than OpenShot is.
OpenShot is however significantly easier to use and does what you need for casual editing. If you want a step above that and still FLOSS then Kdenlive is a better choice.
What makes your original comment useless is that it reads like an American saying, 'I bet our GDP is bigger than Nauru's' - like what is the point? You know the answer already. An open source video editor is unlikely to be as good as DaVinci Resolve. DaVinci has multiplicity of the resources OpenShot/Kdenlive etc. do.
> If we don't see something that's substantially better in the ~30B param space soon - it would appear we might've saturated that size with knowledge.
I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic. We may have saturated the current approach, but I think there's a lot still left in terms of compression, attention, active parameters, caching etc. etc.
- The bad press was because the initial public release on GitHub did not implement most of the things seemed like they're implemented, (Rust like memory safety etc.)
- Over time it actually saw contributions from a lot of people and is kind of decent now, be it not as polished as Go, Rust, D etc.
- It is super easy to use, so kind of attracts an audience.
reply