Hmmm....this post has stayed on top on hackernews (while I didn't visit the link shared in this post) AND the video shared in this post also shows up on top on youtube.
Same has also happened with this hackernews post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39162856 (I didn't visit the link shared in this post either) and looks like this post didn't get 'as much' traction on HN as compared to the above one. However, the video shared in this post also came up on top on youtube.
Looks like HN is a good place to boost your content on YT, if it gets pushed to the top!
I built HN for law using Python. At first it was quite slow, but after doing some tweaks, it loads just as fast as HN. Check it out: https://courtroom.sixftone-mlh.repl.co/
I think that's because Replit's model was trained to generate small snippets of code or parts of your code, which you can glue together later on, rather generating the entire code in the first shot itself.
But I was more surprised by the fact we can run such a model on a CPU!
Idk who the author is and how good he is but this is such a clickbait article, that I couldn't resist commenting.
I mean the article starts with the claim (and which I think is clearly untrue) that "there are now autonomous AI agents, which can in turn create autonomous AI agents of their own". Emphasis is on the use of the words "there are now". As of yet, I have not come across any AutoGPT/BabyAGI variants which can 'create' new agents or agents of their own.
To top it off, this claim is supported by a tweet, which nowhere states/mentions any AutoGPT/BabyAGI variant which is capable of creating their own agents.
But lets move beyond the tech aspects, since the article doesn't really discuss anything about it anyway and because I know a thing or two about tax law. Now considering that this article is being published on Bloomberg (that too on a topic such as taxation) and that the author is an economics professor, one would assume that the article would discuss some real life issues or some practical issues in taxation of AI related services. But no no, clickbait-worthy articles require some clickbait-worthy content and hence we see some hot tax law takes mentioned in this article. I have extracted them below:
(1) "Why own an AI and pay taxes when you can program it to do your bidding, renounce ownership, and enjoy its services tax-free? It seems easy enough to disclaim ownership of autonomous bots, especially if they are producing autonomous bots of their own." - I mean how can an article on tax law ever be complete without mentioning tax avoidance strategies?? ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS TO RENOUNCE (LEGAL) OWNERSHIP AND THAT'S HOW EASY IT IS TO AVOID TAX! and no the tax authorities will not question you as to why are you receiving money from an AI on a regular basis -_-
(2) "Additionally, maybe there should be a kind of gift tax, paid by humans, on any benefits we receive from an AI, whether we own it or not." - Of course, why not? because when calculators are used to solve problems faster, the money earned from such problem solving using calculators was also taxed at higher rates than if you would had solved the problem without using one. Apparently that's how governments' use tax policies to promote innovation - tired of the existing monopolies? Want to come up with new solution? No problem, just be ready to pay higher taxes!
(3) "AIs might be very good at providing in-kind services — improving organizational software, responding to emails, and so on. It is already a problem for the tax system when neighbors barter services, but the AIs will take this kind of relationship to a much larger scale." - Wtf? Let's not even discuss the stupidity in: (i) comparing an AI as your neighbour, and (ii) assuming that availing of services from an AI will be the same as a barter exchange between you and your neighbour. Let us stick to tax law. Since when did it become a good reason for governments to impose taxes on companies for implementing 'cost saving measures' such as use of LLMs for generating email responses? Were any taxes imposed on companies when they started communicating through Email instead of physical mail? or when they started conducting virtual meetings instead of physical meetings?
(4) "Forget about hiring AIs, actually: What if you invest in them, tell them to do your bidding, repudiate your ownership, and then let them run much of your business and life? You could write off your investment in the AI as a business expense, and subsequently receive tax-free in-kind services, in what would amount to a de facto act of exchange." - If I am to write off my investment in the AI as a business expense, how will I repudiate/renounce my ownership in the AI?????? If I am investing in an AI and the AI will generate money for me, how will it be considered a de-facto exchange (this is how investments usually work, so all types of investments should be considered de-facto exchange)??? Moreover, if the AI is capable enough to "run much of my business and LIFE" then I don't think we should be worried about, TAXATION, of all other things.
Same has also happened with this hackernews post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39162856 (I didn't visit the link shared in this post either) and looks like this post didn't get 'as much' traction on HN as compared to the above one. However, the video shared in this post also came up on top on youtube.
Looks like HN is a good place to boost your content on YT, if it gets pushed to the top!