I would be on board for this. Regulate use to very select applications, ban commercial use without specific permits.

I have kids, I stay awake at night a lot these days wondering what I'm supposes to tell them when they look up at me and tell me they want to be a doctor, engineer, or lawyer when they grow up. What the fuck do I get them to aspire to when we're hurtiling towards a world where there's nothing to aspire to anymore? How do I convince them to study hard and learn things when there is no economic incentive to do so? What kind of kids are we raising when they exist in a world of infinite dopamine and a personal familiar that grants your every magic wish?

My senator is Schumer, should I call him and ask him to back Van Hollen?

The purpose of art is not to make me feel something. That's hedonism; functionally masturbation.

The purpose of art is to serve as a method of communication and bond forming. That's the clinical way of putting it but to evoke a bit more "woo"...

The purpose of art is to allow two or more humans to communicate on a level simple dialogue cannot achieve. It's to take the thoughts that live in your head, with or without the limitations of compression needed for transmission (medium), and put them in my head. It was never about feelings or personal satisfaction, those are happy bi-products; its about community and human connection.

AI adds a layer of abstraction in the form of a second, non-human, communicator. I cannot attribute art created by Claude to its user, the user has been obscured, and I can no longer hear their thoughts.

We're talking about a technology that is able to self direct when solving abstract problems, able to develop novel solutions to frontier mathematics. Drum machines do not maintain an internal high dimensional latent information space and display indicators of g. Synthesizers cannot create a novel melody.

This is not "just a tool". It is impossible for me to attribute 'art' created by AI to the human that prompted it. I also now live with the constant paranoia that what is being showed to me was made by an LLM much like who me you are responding to.

It's not that it's bad or soulless, quite the contrary, it's often quite good. It just wasn't made by a human.

Honest question. Why would you want "true AI"?

This is like saying "true mega bubonic-AIDS can be made if we do XYZ".

Stop, stop making mega bubonic-AIDS

Super not fine. It needs to be regulated into the ground. Medical research? Fine. Literally anything else? Get in line for your inference application.

There's actually a reasonable argument for global regulation of AI.

Every country faces an economic doom loop as AI becomes more capable, once it is capable of automating away a sufficient amount of labor the economy will spiral. This means every country, in a game theory sense, is facing a no-win prisoners dillema. That is precisely the recipe that allowed for nuclear nonproliferation.

It is completely within the realm of possibility for the international community to agree to control the training of models at the national level and heavily regulate distribution commercially, similar to what we do with nuclear power.

Or, here's an idea, ban the fuck out of these things.

I'm rather glad I've gotten out of tech.

I expect AI is going to come for every role there is and turn it into being a prompt monkey.

However, I can always turn a wrench!

SWE saw the same arc and now were at Andy Yen saying that a humans job isn't to use LLMs to write good code. It's to help LLMs so they can write good code.

That's what's coming down the pipeline for, quite literally, every single knowledge worker unless something is done.

This, people need to remember that the goal is to complete remove labor power.

The goal is to get to the point where, quite literally, every single job is replaced. The drawings being generated suck now but without organized labor it's going to be hard to argue when they stop sucking.

Just look at what happened to SWEs