Just to point out the obvious, but I think it gets lost in the weeds sometimes:

When you say “Maybe we will someday have an AI publisher”, that is still a person or company with a computer running a program.

So it will still be researchers researching, but the tools they use will help create and value the negative more than those results were valued historically.

My opinion is that this distinction needs to be made clear from time-to-time, so people learning will understand that AI isn’t a mythological creature we’re attempting to tame. It’s a new “programming” paradigm that we are trying to understand and utilize to improve our workloads/workflow.

Just a browser that doesn’t properly sandbox javascript would be a fucking disaster. Even only be limited to data of other third party apps, because users are using third party apps.

It’s not “if”, it’s “when”. It won’t be an “accidental” security lapse either. Although that’s what will be claimed.

“When I make a query of Llama, I’m not asking for a copy of Sarah Silverman’s book – I’m not even asking for an excerpt,” Chhabria said.

The authors also argued that Llama itself is an infringing work. Chhabria said the theory “would have to mean that if you put the Llama language model next to Sarah Silverman’s book, you would say they’re similar.”

“That makes my head explode when I try to understand that,” Chhabria said.

Well said judge, well said.

His proposed solution is ineffective and will cause greater issues.

Not good enough. Not my job. It’s advertised as an ad blocking browser.

Chrome, Firefox, safari, Edge. None require disabling ads from the devs.

Brave is just a big fucking ad at this point.

Not to mention their not-so-subtle push to get people into crypto by asking them to create a wallet as the first thing you see when opening the app.

I came across the blog post for Leo and immediately downloaded it. My recommendation, don’t.