This is another non-solution from Trump. Similar to the "no taxes on tips" nonsense that applies to almost no one since the cap is so high. It's a populist move that doesn't address the problem but appears to be a good thing for working class people at first sight.
These devkits are old and have already been released to consumer laptops over a year ago. So if you want to you can pick up pretty much any CoPilot+ PC. I'm not sure what your problem here is though.
We've already got a taste of that with people like Megyn Kelly saying "it's not pedophilia, it's ephebophilia" when talking about Epstein and his connections. Not surprising though. When you have no principles you'll go as far as possible to "trigger the libs".
Context matters. In this case we're talking about Grok on X. It's not a philosophical debate if open or closed models are good. It's a debate (even though it shouldn't be) about Grok producing CSAM on X. If this was about what users do with their own models on their local machines then things would be different since that's not openly accessible or part of one of the biggest sites on the net. I think most people would argue that public facing LLM's have some responsibility to the public. As would any IP owner.
I think the question of if X should do more to prevent this kind of abuse (I think they should) is separate from Grok or LLM's though. I get that since xAI and X are owned by the same person there is some complications here, but most of the arguments I'm reading have to do with the LLM specifically, not just lax moderation policies.
The author has a myopic view on Gen AI videos. They only focus on the most extreme examples and then hand wave cat videos as some crisis about reality. We had these exact same alarmists with previous technologies. Human's have an uncanny ability to adapt as their environment changes. Photoshop and 3D didn't destroy our brains and neither will this. Misinformation and the such have never needed AI to be effective. Those prey upon people's already existing biases and thoughts.
The time where this becomes normal and these alarmists become the fringe crazies ranting about the end of civilization cannot come fast enough.
I think long term the primary use case for AI generated video is people creating AI generated video for themselves to watch as consumers, rather than passing off AI generated work as their own.
I would not mind if I could go to ChatGPT and say: "Make me a 15 minute video about the history of gold mining in the Byzantine Empire", and it makes a mediocre soulless video I can half pay attention to while working.
If I see a 15 minute video on youtube about it and I find out after starting to watch it that it was AI generated, it sends me into a blind rage that makes me want to delete the internet, though.
Don't give me AI content unless I explicitly ask for it!
I agree that it feels like a bait and switch on YouTube. I expect to see user made videos there. Regardless of how much effort was put into it. I think a policy where these AI videos could be flagged as such would help a ton. Would not be an easy task though for sure.
The endgame is to eliminate legacy support options. Dedicated phone lines for activation costs money. The overwhelming majority of people using Windows 11 have access to some form/time of internet.
This is also just for activation which is not required to use Windows 11. I don't understand the extreme reactions to this. This isn't 2001 anymore.
Why would you take a working system and replace it with one that introduces an entirely new set of bugs and issues that needs to be ironed out? Who benefits in that scenario beside support getting paid by the hour?
This type of flippant childish behavior isn't helping your cause.
I'm sure you can rewrite every piece of professional software yourself in a day for $100 and offer zero support. That will go over swimmingly in the real world.
Is indie music no longer indie if they sell really well? Is an indie film no longer indie if it gets too many awards? This kind of redefinition of indie as "poor people" is ahistorical and unhelpful. Indie means independent of a major studio. Which they are.
If your studio has enough resources that it could easily be its own publisher, the definition "independent from a publisher" is no longer of much use. It's also wrong: this project did have a publisher and various other investment in it.
The founders of this studio come from rich family backgrounds, to think they have anything in common with what the average person understands as an "indie game" developer is laughable. For example, they supposedly rented an office to work in, in a building owned by the founder's father's real estate firm, of course.
Projects like these used to be called AA games. It's a fantastic game, it doesn't have to be indie to be good.
reply