Yes, she said that. But what she said there just doesn’t make any sense.

I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.

An individual can use the roads if the can afford a car. Amazon must be operating 1000s or 10.000s of vehicles in the US alone. Clearly, some benefit more than others. Some win at Monopoly.

Are we at least agreed that it is a conservative policy? If you carve up the roads and gift them to the people who own the land next to the roads, it’s still conservative. It will lead to greater inequality and poverty. It’s not left-wing redistribution.

we’re now going to charge anyone who wants to use them and keep 100%. Oh, and you have no ownership rights, so we can restrict access to these roads as we see fit."

I don’t know what this means. What is currently happening that is like that? Besides, you want data to be owned, and an owner can restrict access. Shouldn’t you be all for that?

I thought of something that maybe gets this across. Think about roads. We all pay for them with taxes. Companies use these roads for free to make a profit. EG Amazon runs delivery vehicles on public roads.

The (center-)left take on that is: “You didn’t build that.” It can be an argument for progressive taxation and even a wealth tax.

Then there’s people who say that we should privatize all the roads. Let Amazon pay a toll for using those roads. Is it clear that this is a conservative policy?

You want to force people (not just companies) to pay for use of a new kind of intellectual property. That is capital income. You want money to go to property owners.

If you think about this for a second, you should realize that this means lower wages. If a bigger share goes to property owners, then employees must have a smaller share. The money can’t come from anywhere else.

Like a corporation that pays wages. Yeah, trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

But it doesn’t redistribute wealth. To do that, you have to take wealth from somewhere and spread it elsewhere.

Private ownership ≠ capitalism.

Right. It’s private ownership of capital; aka the means of production. You’re saying that data should be owned because it can be used productively. That’s exactly capitalism for capitalism’s sake.

This is a typical economically right-wing approach. There is a problem, so you just create a new kind of property and call it done. The magic of the market takes care of it, or something. I don’t understand why one would expect a different result from trying the same thing.

The solution for capitalism is more capitalism? Have you never played monopoly?

Ahh. TV shows before everything became political. Just two guys hating each other for very silly reasons completely unconnected to anything on earth.

Lagerfeld was right.

Haywire. You don’t see that often anymore.

I’m waiting for some irish person to comment. Will this get OP killed in Norn Iron?

The article alleges, though without evidence, that the tracking is just an excuse to raise rates.

A quick search didn’t turn up quite the right statistics, but traffic fatalities have been seriously on the rise in the US. That probably implies higher payouts. (WP)

But also, when trackable unsafe drivers have to pay more (and trackable safe driver less), then the unsafe drivers will prefer to be untrackable. You may be on the receiving end of the recalculated actuary tables.

artificial intelligence noun

1 : the capability of computer systems or algorithms to imitate intelligent human behavior

also, plural artificial intelligences : a computer, computer system, or set of algorithms having this capability

2 : a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial intelligence

that will ultimately be used to create huge amounts of wealth for very few,

But… That is what these poisoning attacks are fighting for. They are attacking open image generators that can be used by anyone. You can use them for fun or for business, without having to pay rent to some owner who is not lifting a finger. What do you think will happen if you knock that out?

This attack doesn’t target Big Tech, at all. The model has to be open to pull off an attack like that.

This doesn’t have anything to do with tracking. This is supposed to sabotage free and open image generators (ie stable diffusion). It’s unlikely to do anything, though.

Hard to say what the makers want to achieve with this. Even if it did work, it would help artists just as much, as better DRM would help programmers. On its face, this is just about enforcing some ultra-capitalist ideology that wants information to be owned.

Paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.01.504602v2

Open replication: https://github.com/BioMachineLearning/openpom

Text explaining why the neural network representation of common features (typically with weighted proportionality to their occurrence) does not meet the definition of a mathematical average. Does it not favor common response patterns?

Hmm. I’m not really sure why anyone would write such a text. There is no “weighted proportionality” (or pathways). Is this a common conception?

You don’t need it to be an average of the real world to be an average. I can calculate as many average values as I want from entirely fictional worlds. It’s still a type of model which favors what it sees often over what it sees rarely. That’s a form of probability embedded, corresponding to a form of average.

I guess you picked up on the fact that transformers output a probability distribution. I don’t think anyone calls those an average, though you could have an average distribution. Come to think of it, before you use that to pick the next token, you usually mess with it a little to make it more or less “creative”. That’s certainly no longer an average.

You can see a neural net as a kind of regression analysis. I don’t think I have ever heard someone calling that a kind of average, though. I’m also skeptical if you can see a transformer as a regression but I don’t know this stuff well enough. When you train on some data more often than on other data, that is not how you would do a regression. Certainly, once you start RLHF training, you have left regression territory for good.

The GPTisms might be because they are overrepresented in the finetuning data. It might also be from the RLHF and/or brought out by the system prompt.