I think banning it from being a business venture is a good idea, and realistically the technology for generative AI will stay even if there’s an outright ban.

People will still be able to build their own models and cybersecurity defense will continue keeping up with black hat hacking, but corpos like OpenAI, or divisions like Google’s numerous AI divisions, should be banned unless it has an explicit purpose for research in things like the medical field, and have generative AI as we know it right now be culled.

They also assume you’re out of control of everything, like talking about how you overcame a mental health issues without following popular advice, then it delivers an unnecessarily condescending “reality check”

I’m glad I’ve stopped using the mainstream AI sites entirely over a year ago, they may be more helpful compared to local LLMs and SLMs but they assume you’re using it because you can’t depend on yourself.

I hope these reality checks improve enough to actually be helpful and be based on the described situation, not just be a cookie cutter response enforced by a system prompt

Ironic how this article forces you to agree to personalised advertising

deleted by creator

Then, by all means elaborate on your perspective.

I personally view this issue as a fight between energy technology and energy resources.

If the main energy system is based on a technology that utilises the environment, such as solar, wind, hydro, tidal and others, of course energy output fluctuates due to conditions, but you can mass manufacture and slowly iterate on them overtime, just like how solar pricing has dropped almost exponentially.

If the main energy system is based on utilising a resource, such as natural gas, coal, uranium, thorium and others, of course you’ll get a ton of energy output and systems within can keep it perfectly stable, but the downside is that emissions, accidents, centralisation and the ethics of mining these resources are a pretty substantial issue.

Ideally, we should have an energy grid mostly consisting of passive technology based energy systems, with suitable resource based energy systems coming in second, since we can have the benefits of decentralisation allowing building based and community micro grids to continue functioning, while also having the redundancy of resource energy systems to account for any defects caused by environmental issues, such as volcanic ash blocking the sun in certain areas, but realistically the need for resource energy systems would be low, as the whole environment can’t be nullified by conditions. If there isn’t sun, there would likely still be wind, tidal and hydro, and vice versa for all.

It’d be interesting to see your take.

I genuinely don’t understand people like this who are so averse to thinking that they go out of their way to prompt a language model to get an answer that they should’ve known already.

People in my life say I think to much despite the fact I’m naturally a deep thinker, quick is disappointing to hear from them because I know they use LLMs for “research”, which really means to ask tops 3 questions and think you’re informed.

Well hey, at least the rich can be unthinking dumbasses too

I have a similar level (though I do enjoy other genres as well) of fixation with watching the star trek franchise, but I wouldn’t force anyone to watch it with me, let alone multiple times, especially if they aren’t also into such a genre.

If I were in a relationship and my SO we’re to watch shows with me, I’d be fine with us alternating between our genres. If your partner doesn’t want to be open minded about your interests too, then they ought to not be in a relationship until they figure that out.

Username checks out