It’s mostly the color of the light that’s the problem right? Our brains register the cooler light in the contrasting darkness as blindingly bright as opposed to warmer incandescent light, despite both lights having the same measured brightness (lumens).

Yeah, all training ends up being pattern learning in some form or fashion. But acceptable patterns end up matching logic. So for example if you ask ChatGPT a question, it will use its learned pattern to provide its estimate of the correct ouptut. That pattern it’s learned encompasses/matches logical processing of the user input and the output that it’s been trained to see as acceptable output. So with enough training, it should and does go from simple memorization of individual examples to learning these broad acceptable rules, like logic (or a pattern that matches logical rules and “understanding of language”) so that it can provide acceptable responses to situations that it hasn’t seen in training. And because of this pattern learning and prediction nature of how it works, it often “hallucinates” information like citations (creating a novel citation matching the pattern its seen instead of the exact citation that you want, where you actually want memorized information) that you might ask of it as sources for what its telling you.

I’m less worried about a system that learns from the information and then incorporates it when it has to provide an answer (ex. learning facts) than I am of something that steals someone’s likeness, something we’ve clearly have established people have a right to (ex. voice acting, action figures, and sports video games). And by that extension/logic, I am concerned as to whether AI that is trained to produce something in the style of someone else, especially in digital/visual art also violates the likeness principle logically and maybe even comes close to violating copyright law.

But at the same time, I’m a skeptic of software patents and api/UeX copyrighs. So I don’t know. Shit gets complicated.

I still think AI should get rid of mundane, repetitive, boring tasks. But it shouldn’t be eliminating creative, fun asks. It should improve productivity without replacing or reducing the value of the labor of the scientist/artist/physician. But if AI replaced scribes and constructionists in order to make doctors more productive and able to spend more time with patients instead of documenting everything, then that would be the ideal use of this stuff.

Isn’t copyright about the right to make and distribute or sell copies or the lack there of? As long as they can prevent jailbreaking the AI, reading copyrighted material and learning from it to produce something else is not a copyright violation.

Here’s a more recent update and discussion of the state of the project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SamA5Oz-G5w

While I find your assertion inspiring and very worthy of consideration, I have to wonder what the incentive is to sustain Android development. Apple sells the hardware that goes with its OS(es), so they get the hardware revenue (not to mention the App Store and iCloud subscription revenues). They would have to start charging devices to use their operating system or something, and I have to wonder if that would be possible under open source licenses.

I would love an open, sustained, and even open source, secure operating system for phones that’s the target of app development. I think the Linux stack should should develop an NPR/PBS type ecosystem public funding of development (with maybe the corporate underwriting of those networks being equivalent to contributions from corporate employed developers to the open source code) and I’d love for it to be a real competitor in the smart phone market (knowing the Android stack modifies and sits on top of Linux).

1. Right now it’s already set as the default search engine and you have to work to change it to something else as I understand it. I’m proposing that no default is set and that the user is asked to select one upon first installing Firefox from an ordered list of search engines. If that’s already the case (it’s been a while since I installed Firefox from scratch), then I’d argue that’s fine. And it allows other search engines to contribute to be higher up in the rankings.

2. I can’t think of anything that would replace the revenue that Google pays Mozilla that sustains the development salaries to hopefully keep Mozilla competitive and hopefully making it the best performing, convenient and private browser.

Major brain fart/typo, haha.

Mozilla (not Google) got rid of the side projects, increased the CEO’s salary, and laid off a bunch of employees during the pandemic. It basically got rid of the innovation that could have made Firefox a faster, more secure, and pleasant experience. Rust and Rust-based Servo, as a replacement for Gecko, were two of those side projects. These are the things Mozilla needs to invest in.

Also, I think Mozilla needs to ask the user upon install what the default search engine should be from a list of search engines including Google, Duck Duck Go, Bing, and Yahoo. Maybe the order of those could be arranged based on how much they’re able to finagle from the search engines.

The real monopoly is their control over Chrome. That’s what they should be forced to split from the company that owns the search engine. Development and design of Chrome should not and cannot be done by the company that runs the search engine and gets its revenue from ads.