Because reddit? :D

Interesting. Potentially something that might be also used in the ongoing lawsuit against copilot?

and what does voting there do to make it open source? Lecun already knows that majority of people don't like this licensing as people were tweeting that at him since llama release...

It's most likely enforceable, but even if it's not they can simply ban OP for doing that. if OP is using their API in any way that's important to him, it's something to consider.

Yea, but one thing is not adding up. It's not like I can go to a competitor and get access to similar level of quality API.

Plus if it's a price war... with Google.. that would be stupid. Even with Microsoft's money, Alphabet Inc is not someone you want to go to war on undercutting prices.

Also they updated their polices on using users data, so the data gathering argument doesn't seem valid as well (if you trust them)

Edit: ah, btw. I don't say that there is no ulterior motive here. I don't really trust "Open"AI since the "GPT2-is-to-dangerous-to-release" bs (and corporate restructuring). Just that I don't think is that simple.

You mean... Jarvis? :D

>"Kids in school today will be doing jobs that don't exist yet."

Yea, and all but one job I had didn't exist when I was a kid. And my life isn't and wasn't terrible ;-)

​

>Now I don't know how to advise either of them. Programming will revolutionize with AI and

I think there was just a short period of human history when schools were actually preparing for jobs. The education system will change, evolve, or become obsolete and be replaced by something different.

​

>digital art has been dealt a death-blow in under a month.

Art has not been dealt a death-blow. Image generators are for sure disruptive tech, but will not kill art. Maybe in a few generations of this tech. If they will get 100x better. But even then - they will not make magically make people that like to do art not do it or they will not magically destroy Krita or paint shop pro.

As a reminder, for most of the human history art wasn't a profitable profession, and even currently most artists don't make a living out of making art.

Also, dalle/SD/midjourney didn't happen overnight. Diffusion models were first described in 2015. And that paper did build up upon a whole body of prior work.

​

>All the digital art communities are fracturing because AI art is overwhelming them - the split is because some humans don't want AI art polluting their communities - but there's no way to tell what's AI art anymore.

No, not yet. AI image generators are not good enough (I use them almost daily for both work and fun) and you can easily spot issues, esp with details. But they are getting better and better.

​

Overall, we are very bad at foresight, but very good at adapting to change.

Changes in digital space are fast. Changes in the physical world are slow. One can influence the other, but there are limits how fast physical world can change.... or as chatgpt would say:

In the digital world, changes can happen very quickly. Information can be transmitted instantly across the internet, and software can be updated and deployed almost instantly. In contrast, changes in the physical world tend to be slower and more laborious. It takes time and resources to build physical infrastructure, manufacture products, and make changes to the natural environment.

However, the digital world can influence the physical world and vice versa. For example, the internet and social media can be used to mobilize people and organize protests or other political action, which can then lead to changes in the physical world. Similarly, physical actions such as building a bridge or planting a forest can have long-term impacts on the natural environment and the quality of life for people living in the area.