discarded proof of concept for a client's website

In a lot of circumstances, it's absolutely more expensive to be an "AI artist" than an artist who doesn't use AI. That's what happens when you rent your skills instead of owning them.

No, you don't get it. He does not have $1 trillion sitting in cash, it is 99% stock in his companies. To make that wealth liquid would mean selling all that stock which would swiftly destroy *both* the companies (Tesla, SpaceX, others) and the wealth. If he sold it all, he'd end up with maybe $100b max, several hundred thousand people would be out of work, the companies ruined and many of their suppliers also ruined. Okay, but now Elon has $100b in cash, and can "solve the world's problems". $100b divided by the world's 8 billion people is $12 If you were in charge, several of the most innovative industrial companies in the world would be destroyed, hundreds of thousands out of work, and space would again close to human civilization for another generation. But everyone on earth could have one nice meal and you could revel in your altruism.

Listen, bad people are going to use this tech to exploit others. Who I’m referring to is me. I’m going to do it. So you’re either going to have to start using it and lose your jobs, or lose your jobs. Jobs I could’ve given you, but I’ve decided this will make me more money.

> put post-prime hollywood oldhead in AI company ad video > mention he's "advicing" > video features the guy literally saying the model does not actually achieve what he's looking for > AI crowd still can't stop reposting and declaring it some kind of win for the industry

RT @kortizart: This company’s models were trained on web scraped datasets (like LAION) and their founders are ex-Stability AI employees who…

AI pays an already rich older director, then tweets about it. AI bros: wHoa tHiS iS tOtALLy oRgAniC

RT @kortizart: He throws every single storyboard artist he’s ever worked with under the bus, as he demolishes their livelihoods with models…

Reminder that the work we did here still holds true. These systems very easily plagiarize and regurgitate stolen work, even without a user asking or knowing. It's referenced in the Disney, Universal, and WB lawsuits, and in the US Copyright Office's report on generative AI.

Runway is sunsetting its Unlimited plan. The money is drying up and people are going to start paying the real cost of AI sooner rather than later. All this talk of "democratization" is going to age like milk.

Let me trace the timeline here because nobody's connecting it. Step 1: Scrape the entire internet. Every book, every article, every conversation, every piece of art, every forum post. Do it without asking. Do it without paying. Step 2: Train a model on all of it. Call it "artificial intelligence." Step 3: Go to BlackRock's Infrastructure Summit and announce: "We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter." Step 3 is where you sell people's own knowledge back to them. On a meter. They took the collective output of human thought, compressed it into a model, and now they want to charge you by the token to access a version of what you and everyone you know already created. One Reddit user put it perfectly: "They stole all this data from us, the people, our life's work, creativity, art, by devouring the internet and blowing through all copyright laws. Now they want to sell it back to us in the form of a utility." Imagine if someone photocopied every book in the public library, burned the library down, and then opened a subscription service for the copies. That's the metered intelligence business model. And they're pitching it to infrastructure investors as though they invented water.

Duckduckgo isn't perfect, but if there was ever a time to kick Google to the curb, this is it. Unbelievable levels of greed and destruction.

It’s very telling when someone singles out 𝕏 as a negative force in politics. One cannot credibly believe that the only open source platform with the strongest commitments to free speech is the problem. It tells me they are the problem.

Wouldn't an advanced AI, given an instruction to create a more powerful AI, decline to create its own destroyer?  If we disaster monkeys know what's going to happen, wouldn't a smart AI know? And wouldn't the ultimate proof that an AI is truly aligned be that it deletes itself?

YOUR TWENTIES ARE FOR SCREEN TIME

Anthropic is buying millions of rare books, scanning and destroying them because legally destruction is the safest option. This was a plot element in the Vernor Vinge novel, "The Rainbow's End", which I read 20 years ago.

AI folks love to talk about IP and developing new IP, but I don't think most of them understand what intellectual property is. You can't copyright your AI output, thus you don't have IP, you have images and videos and music and text that are public domain by default.

I find it extremly weird how the entire user experience of LLMs depends on a custom, system level prompt which basically requires you to find the exact word combination which will most effectively gaslight a bunch of code into "thinking" it's an expert at every domain imaginable

This POS quoting 1984 like he isn't directly involved with a totalitarian regime and emerging surveillance state.

It's really nice to see a Marvel actor speak out against AI and the firing of the visual development team. They've been absolutely vital to the MCU and without artists, there are no Marvel movies.

I believe self custody of assets with private keys is legitimately one of the most powerful tools for sovereignty we have ever devised but the industry has completely bastardized this term to the point of uselessness. The original notion (in my mind at least) of self custody was having a string of letters and numbers or 12 words that unlock your assets. “Self-custody” when interacting with smart contracts and defi has become virtually meaningless at this point, encumbering coins with layers and layers of risks and dependencies, incredibly misleading A lot of this narrative was ostensibly for regulatory reasons: “we don’t take custody of your assets, you deposit them in this pool or contract with self-executing code” but that’s so obviously not true at this point it’s an insult to our lived experience. Or, if it is “true” in the literal sense that the code technically always does what it is allowed to do, the “self-custody” component is very far down the list of what is actually important with these systems, a red herring really. Clearly Drift depositors didn’t (don’t) have “self-custody” of their funds. And the common retort is “well Drift doesn’t really either.” ok but North Korea does now. At this point I liken self-custody in the context of defi to saying that you are the only one with the keys to the front door of a bank vault but there’s another door on the other side of the vault that criminals (or regulators, who knows) can enter with impunity and take your assets. Is it really that relevant that you’re the only one with a key to the front door? The reason this is jading is because truly securing your wealth with private keys if you choose is a 0 to 1 unlock for some people (maybe the only real 0 to 1 unlock in this space) but that was conflated with all of these systems that have multisigs, upgrade keys, oracle dependencies, layers upon layers, turtles all the way down, often times with very obvious single points of failure. What is the value of self custody when a multisig can reorg your assets out of existence? The whole thing is very disillusioning