How exactly would the government ban training runs? Like how would that work? What would the legislation text look like? And how would it be enforceable without running afoul of the vagueness doctrine?
replyNot really that hard: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB53/id/3271094
replyThat's just political signaling, not a serious bill. It wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge.
replyWhen the bubble pops, their customer is the military/government, and the goal is regulation. "Our thing did another impressive hack" helps both of those goals.
replyNot saying it's intentional, but it does move them where they wanna go.
I think a lot of people here love AI and don't want it taken away. Calling every red flag marketing is a way to trivialize the problem and prevent regulation.
replyWhen you understand people's motives, then it's easier to understand why they call it marketing. Personally I feel like it's almost an unconscious reaction to cope with the fact that this stuff is getting really dangerous and they can't believe it themselves - stick your head in the sand and call it marketing.
Nah, there's no actual danger. Only worthless clowns and shills making up sci-fi scenarios.
replyIf you’re serious then you’re case in point the exact type of person that I am talking about. I think some people just lack any capability of foresight whatsoever, it’s very strange.
replyThere are some ignorant people who don't understand the technology and make wild predictions of catastrophe. It's very strange.
replyCan you say concretely why HuggingFace is lying about being successfully hacked?
replyIs the claim that the benefit to HuggingFace of "ooo wow someone else's proprietary AI is so good" is greater than the downside of "HuggingFace is not a secure service?"
The relevant "customers" are investors, not "the average consumer"
reply