The case is not money, it's clear:
> The move comes at a time of growing concern within European administrations over their heavy dependency on US software for day-to-day work amid increasingly unreliable transatlantic relations
Of course comparing open source and AI is like comparing apples and oranges, but the question makes a lot of sense. Just the first thing that comes to mind: open source is about transparency whereas LLMs are opaque by nature. This is a radical shift and challenge for engineering and has consequences way beyond it.
It's about the role of technologies in evolution, responsibility versus utilitarian take, etc. It should be developed and discussed seriously, but not in a buried sub-thread.
That's really interesting, but i'm wondering if this is as rational as it looks.
> we are going to be kinda of obsolete in what defined us, as a profession: the ability to write code
Is it a fact, really? I don't think "writing code" is a defining factor, maybe it's a prerequisite, as being able to write words hardly defines "a novelist".
Anyway, prompt writing skills might become obsolete quite soon. So the main question might be to know which trend of technological evolution to pick and when, in order not to be considered obsolete. A crystal ball might still be more relevant than LLMs for that.
The second video shows the head of the CNIL (~ the "regulator") mostly repeating platitudes about various topics, but nothing about age restriction for social networks. Did i miss anything?
> [...] the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) obliges gatekeepers like Google to effectively allow the distribution of apps on their operating system through third party app stores or the web. At the same time, the DMA also permits Google to introduce strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that third-party software apps or app stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system or to enable end users to effectively protect security. [...]
They seem to be on it, but no surprise: it's all about Google's claims for "security" and "ongoing dialogue gatekeepers".
Filling forms is a terribly artificial activity in essence. They are also very culturally biased, but that fits well with the material the NNs have been trained with.
So, surely those IQ-related tests might be acceptable rating tools for machines and they might get higher scores than anyone at some point.
Anyway, is the objective of this kind of research to actually measure the progress of buzzwords, or amplify them?
Surely "intelligence" is a broad field... i might not be so that great at it, but i hope that's ok.
"[LLMs] reason using the same type of associative abstract thinking as humans do": do you have a reference for this bold statement?
I entered "associative abstract thinking llm" in a good old search engine. The results point to papers rather hinting that they're not so good at it (yet?), for example: https://articles.emp0.com/abstract-reasoning-in-llms/.
"AI" is too much of a broad umbrella term of competing ideas, from symbolic logic (FOL, expert systems) to statistical operations (NNs). It's clear today that the latter has won the race, but ignoring this history doesn't seem to be a very smart move.
I'm in no way an expert but I feel that today's LLMs lack some concepts well known in the research of logical reasoning. Something like: semantic.
Signal is doing a great job fighting for its survival as a public platform.
It's obvious that "chat-control" cannot be effective in its official purpose: there are already and will be many ways to evade surveillance like CSS for those who really want to.
But it might achieve a devastating side-product, the dream of any authoritarian regime: the criminalization of privacy, which would lead to the end of freedom as we know it. "1984" was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
That could be true in a perfect world, where people and systems executing the surveillance are perfectly capable, respectful, honest and accountable, forever.
But in a perfect world surveillance is not necessary anyway: that kind of statement is just fallacious rhetoric.
Interesting that this national law was pushed by people in an alliance around Macron: the same team which might sign the opposite for the EU. Just a drop in an ocean of nonsense, from where such a dangerous bill might emerge.
I'm happily using podman only. Lightweight, secure by design, sweet integration with systemd as an orchestrator: a perfect middle ground when the complexity of k8s isn't needed.
Sadly "docker" is just a synonym for "container" for most people, so the main issue is that most projects only ship a compose file. Hopefully they'll ship quadlet files too, some day.
Alternatively, a public repository for sharing quadlets for popular open source software would be great.
Security is always a cat and mouse game, solutions already exist and more will come soon anyway. It's just technology after all.
The problem now is not for the mice, it's a matter of defending basic human rights.
In short: everything and everyone is suspect and need to approved by technocratic superior authorities and zealot private organizations.
Yesterday China, USA, Russia, UK, India etc and today the EU aligning with North Korean style of control on people.
This is a mind boggling recipe for disaster, a worldwide dystopian nightmare coming true with an unprecedented but quite predictable series of consequences.
Next step: compulsory installation of CCTV inside every home?