Then do it. LLMs are out there. Where are all the people founding billion dollar companies run by LLMs? Maybe they’re just quiet about it so everyone else doesn’t catch on.
If the article is not about the author starting a real company with AI that deposited real dollars into their bank account that they could spend, then I don’t see why anyone should care.
JFC, no you don’t get to choose whatever you want and being denied the choice of your #1 preference is not being “forced” to do anything. Other people exist and have interests too, you know?
If he had chosen both then that is the same as choosing OpenAI. “Both” was not an option on the table.
Being told to commit or leave is not being kicked out. You can choose to commit and stay.
The owner is living there and happy with the space or they would move. That is not underutilization. The solution to housing shortage is to build more housing, not to create “bedroom police” who go around and tell you’re not allowed to have your house because they will decide for you how much space you need.
Lol bedroom police. Yes, because that's exactly what we were discussing.
Or, you could, you know, make it more affordable to build smaller homes with fewer bedrooms so people actually have options when they become empty nesters.
Instead of pumping in ever more money to feed inflation, why don’t we ask how we can make food and healthcare cheaper?
Why is it “Amazon doesn’t pay enough for workers to afford healthcare” instead of “Healthcare is so exorbitantly expensive even people with relatively well paying jobs can’t afford it without government assistance”?
Just so I understand correctly, the sneaky, diabolical, psychopathic behavior we're talking about here is ... making a voice that sounds like a celebrity's voice? We're not talking about poisoning babies or dumping toxic waste in a river, right? The reason we're supposed to consider Sam Altman a villain of unparalleled magnitude is that he used a voice that sounded like a celebrity and she got mad about it. Correct?
We’re talking about reaching out to an individual for consent, not getting consent, and then deliberately choosing a voice actor to circumvent that lack of consent.
Sam’s statement partially contradicts this by saying they contracted the voice actor before ScarJo - but I believe there’s enough intent shown in ScarJos original tweet that Sam as a default disregarded the entire interaction as an inconvenience where he could be “naughty” and get away without consequences.
You reach out to someone to do a job, they decline to take the job, you find someone else who can do the job in a similar way. You do not need the consent of the person who declined the job to hire someone else.
I'm sure lots of movies have tried to cast Scarlett Johanson for a role and she declined, so they went with another actress who looked similar. Should she sue them too?
There was an entire industry of people just impersonating Elvis. I don't think they needed his (or his estate's) permission to do that other than paying royalties to the songwriters to perform the songs.
I’m sure this happens all the time in Hollywood. I’ve seen lots of movies thinking, “oh I guess they couldn’t get Jack Black for this role”, or Johnny Depp, or whoever it seemed like the part was intended for.
> You reach out to someone to do a job, they decline to take the job, you find someone else who can do the job in a similar way. You do not need the consent of the person who declined the job to hire someone else.
If the job is being the first person you reached out to, then you accept that you can't get the job done...
I know it's a meme and all, but doesn't blockchain solve this? Ok, Mr. Guy who looks like my boss on Video Call, I can send those funds, just sign the transaction with your private key and it'll all be done.
Blockchain does not authenticate the receiver, so there are all sorts of attacks involving substituting the payment address, from dumb (stickers over QR codes) to sophisticated.
That’s a completely different thing though. The problem here is deepfakes where someone pretending to have the authority to send money tells you to send money.
Probably because there would be a way to exploit such a policy. You’re a normal, honest person, so you think “Why wouldn’t the bank believe me? I would only claim I lost my money through fraud if it were true.”
But the bank also has to deal with dishonest people who might make fraudulent claims about being defrauded.
You're focusing on compensation to victim (and that becoming a new fraud mechanism). Instead, try focusing on what the banks could do to decrease the actual crime. Some examples:
US banking is notoriously sloppy about allowing withdrawals with just knowledge of routing number and bank account number, while every check written contains both numbers -- in Europe, the bank account number can only be used to transfer money to the account (and checks practically don't exist).
One day out of the blue, some hundreds of dollars were transferred out of my American bank account, seeming to claim purchases in a city several hours away. I didn't authorize such transactions. They were direct debits of my account, not credit card charges. A few days later, my money was returned. How was that possible? Why did the bank agree to transfer money out of my account?
All the way back in the 90s, my European bank gave me a one-time codebook, to be used in addition to username and password to authenticate online transfers. Whenever I was close to running out of codes, they gave me a new codebook. Managing to steal my password wouldn't have let an attacker easily empty my account.
My European bank in a small city, that I had been a customer of for decades, and whose employee that I was interacting with being a family friend, verified my passport before discussing a loan.
Yes, the situation in Europe is much better, even more so after the introduction of PSD2 which requires strong customer authentication and is specifically designed to avoid (or at least minimize..) identity fraud.
This doesn't justify putting all the responsibility on the innocent person whose money got stolen by fraud. The fraudster didn't get money from the innocent person. They got it from the bank. That should make it the bank's problem.
If the bank is concerned about fraudulent claims about being defrauded, that's just another case of them needing to improve their fraud detection process.
This is also why credit card companies refuse to work with porn - there are an immense number of people who charge back porn purchases almost immediately.
reply