Yeah, I don't think we can regulate this problem away personally. Because whatever regulations will be made will either be technically impossible and nonsensical products of people who don't understand what they're regulating that will produce worse side effects (@simonw extracted a great quote from recent Doctorow post on this: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Aug/14/cory-doctorow/) or just increase regulatory capture and corporate-state bonds, or even facilitate corp interests, because the big corps are the ones with economic and lobbying power.
On the one hand, an amusing anecdote about an interaction with someone that ended up becoming massively famous does come across as somewhat noteworthy, but on the other hand, the fact that Job's response basically translates to: "Um, ok." does make this kind of... sad?
Side effects of living in a world where wealth and power have become virtues. I think we subconsciously judge our own value based on how many degrees we came to stepping onto the world's "stage".
This is how I felt. A blog article 34 years later about a interaction so trivial that Jobs probably forgot it even happened 10 seconds later. I cringe a little. But hey whatever makes people happy.
Can't "just take away" ie, there has to be a law prescribing the removal of the right. Lawful rights vs inalienable human rights. Same thing exists in US. You have a right to certain things, like the right to privacy, but that right can be lost in the right circumstances as determined by law.
The difference here is that in the US, children don't by default inherit the same legal rights as adults and instead have a different set of rights which often means they never had a legal right to, for example, privacy or ownership, in the first place.
No, the LLM can only "see" a lower res version of the uploaded photo. It has to crop to process finer details, and they are suggesting its silly this isn't a built in feature and instead relies on python to do this.
Depends what you mean by, "Best choice in front of you"
Most people in developed countries are not in a situation where if they do not eat the food in front of them now, they will starve. Nearly every grocery store should have things like tofu, lentil, beans, etc easily available. It may be most convenient, or most delicious, or something like that but vegetarianism and plant based are both very viable options for most of the developed world at this point.
Voting for a candidate in a 2 party system is not comparable, as there is literally not another viable choice in most cases.
> Depends what you mean by, "Best choice in front of you"
Meaning that after you've weighed all the tradeoffs, you determine one of the available choices is your best option. Making tradeoffs was already spoken to. I don't think that is a foreign concept to the HN crowd, is it? Engineering is all about managing tradeoffs.
> Nearly every grocery store should have things like tofu, lentil, beans, etc easily available.
None of them are perfectly equivalent to the burger, thus tradeoffs have to be made if you choose tofu over a burger. If satiation is your only goal, then it may not matter, but most people don't eat in that kind of vacuum. They will have a long list of properties they want to fulfill with their food, with no food item perfectly satisfying all of them, hence the need to determine what one is willing to give up.
> Voting for a candidate in a 2 party system is not comparable, as there is literally not another viable choice in most cases.
I guess I don't see how your math is mathing. In my world, 2 implies that you have at least two choices (you could argue that not voting, spoiling the ballot, etc. are also choices, but we can ignore them for now). That means one of the choices you can deem as the best choice.
If you think harming animals unnecessarily is wrong, but still eat meat, then yes thats cognitive dissonance. The meat industry is the single most prolific source of animal abuse in the world. Factory farms are basically auschwitz for animals. Buying meat and then getting upset at someone who kicked their dog etc. is a pretty clear cut example of dissonance because you are saying that animal abuse is wrong, but your actions indicate you have no problem with it.
I get what you’re saying but you’re kind of discounting how much proximity to an action matters. There’s a big difference in how a murder happening in front of me/somebody I know impacts me vs. knowing there was a murder of somebody I don’t know somewhere out there probably while I wrote this comment. both are equally tragic, both do not occupy my mental or emotional in space the same way
Comparing animal cruelty with what is pretty widely seen as one of the single most horrific things humans have ever done to each other serves to weaken your argument for people that don't already agree with you, not strengthen it.
I know comparisons are a tempting tool, since they're a very effective way of communicating a lot of information and, more importantly, an impression very economically. But part of what made the holocaust so horrible is that people were being treated like animals. It's like trying to argue that dogs should be kept inside by saying "What if you made your toddler sleep outside in a dog house?", it's a comparison that defeats itself.
If your goal is to feel righteous on the internet and demonstrate your strong love for animals, by all means proceed. If your goal is to change hearts and minds, reconsider your rhetoric; you'll have much more luck if you tune it to people that don't already agree with you,
There’s a reason why Isaac Bashevis Singer and Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz have made the comparison of factory farming to the holocaust. Factory farming is arguably the single most horrific thing humanity has done period. Its scale is terrifying.
> part of what made the holocaust so horrible is that people were being treated like animals. It's like trying to argue that dogs should be kept inside by saying "What if you made your toddler sleep outside in a dog house?", it's a comparison that defeats itself.
"In relation to [animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka"
– Isaac Bashevis Singer
"I believe as long as man tortures and kills animals, he will torture and kill humans as well—and wars will be waged—for killing must be practiced and learned on a small scale".
It was easy to fix though, I just said "all the way full" and it got it on the next try. Which makes sense, a full pour is actually "overfull" given normal standards.
For starters, this completely blocks generation of anything remotely related to copy-protected IPs, which may actually be a saving grace for some creatives. There's a lot of demand for fanart of existing characters, so until this type of model can be run locally, the legal blocks in place actually give artists some space to play in where they don't have to compete with this. At least for a short while.
Fan-art is still illegal, especially since a lot of fan artists are doing it commercially nowadays via commissions and Patreon. It's just that companies have stopped bothering to sue for it because individual artists are too small to bother with, and it's bad PR. (Nintendo did take down a super popular Pokemon porn comic, though.)
So it's ironic in this sense, that OpenAI blocking generation of copyrighted characters means that it's more in compliance with copyright laws than most fan artists out there, in this context. If you consider AI training to be transformative enough to be permissible, then they are more copyright-respecting in general.
Not sure if I fully agree on that. Using AI as a tool can usually reduce the total time it takes to complete an assignment or project by like 50%, not to mention it also reduces the amount of time spent pulling your hair out feeling stuck by like 80-90%. Of course, you lose out on most of the learning experience but it's not like the old days of smuggling in rolled up papers or writing inside a water bottle -- "cheating" (if you can even call it that) has basically never been easier.
