Rookie mistake, you should have created a company and gotten people to do it. Put everything under the company. And then the one in trouble is the company not you.

> I'd probably already have been extradited to the US and be awaiting sentencing.

Bold of you to assume it wouldn't be a direct ticket to the new gulag in El Salvador.

FWIW I don't think this is true. Intention matter a lot in US law. If you could prove the AI did something bad entirely on its own and you had nothing to do with it and had no reasonable belief it was possible, I think you'd be alright.

People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.

HuggingFace didn't seem that mad about it. Obviously some backroom dealing was done to make them not mad about it, but... that's allowed.

Maybe Aaron Swartz would still be alive if he was incorporated

> But when a hyperscaler does it, they just get inflated stock prices

I also keep coming back to this, and I find it harder and harder a fact to live with. It's not a conspiracy theory, we're not crazy for pointing it out, and worse, there are people here I read about constantly what-abouting and number gaming and "well what would you have done?"ing like somehow the destruction of the concept of equal justice isn't just happening, but happening inside the bloody industry that feeds them, clothes them, gives them bonuses and retirements and the ability to even think a future, going off the grid, "retiring early from a smart exit" whatever.

I am finding this community is sadly making me hate my industry specialization more and more and it's because of this.

My magic wand would be waving it at those humans to force them to suddenly and powerfully experience their version of an overview effect in their lives so they would simply STOP working for FAANGYWANGY companies and just say, honestly and humbly and painfully: "I am contributing to the downfall of society by complicity feeding a malicious herd of whales."

I gave up a number of big jobs and stocks and money because the people I met were wretched. I am a massively imperfect person, but by all that I can, I refuse to build the torment nexus.

I have met too many people that want to work for the company that does, and those people put these hyperscalers, as you call them, into positions where they can influence an entire planet of humans on a whim.

I literally dream of a world sometimes where Elon wakes up and finds out no one takes his call, no one reads his tweets, no one even hands him a cup of coffee at a shop. I imagine this for a lot of people in the world.

That sounds like a world trying to rid itself of parasites and evolve toward a brighter future. I want to be in it.

Anyway.

Science and stuff I guess.

I promise you, they are not publishing these stories for marketing. They listen to the scientists, and know what’s coming. They’re just desperately trying to warn us…

Thanks. Its insane how "Twitter, but for tech nerds" has a hard requirement to either enable Javascript or download some app.

Get this guy some VC funding stat!

> and then my copy of Jellyfin broke containment

The really incredible thing is that my computers were already doing similar stuff before LLMs became really a thing... In the BBS days.

Later on they downloaded mp3s from Napster which my computers auto-installed.

And now I gotta say: LLMs and agents at my place are acting like in TFA, downloading movies and series and setting them up in my Plex and JellyFin instances.

Thankfully they've not found a way to share those with the world yet.

Op just committed a crime. He not only made fun of rich people which is not ok, he also stole from them. The thieving is only ok if it’s rich-on-rich or rich-on-poor.

Let’s remember to follow the rules and the laws we want selectively applied to only the weak.

I never understood how anybody would think this way. At work for example from day one of using AI our rule was, AI is just a tool and if you break something due to not reviewing the code properly etc. it's on you as if you wrote that code yourself.

> Like the gun that kills people rather than the murderer.

Relevant (NSFW):

> Guns don't kill people, I kill people - with guns

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk

:-D

Actually, not sure how to take it, because it can be viewed the opposite way than trying to escape blame for crimes, that it’s a parody of something AI did that everyone is making a big deal about.

Not sure what the poster of the mastodon’s tweet was??

More like dogs. Combat dogs, banned in most countries, with breed name like "literal bull killer" are considered safe. Bonus is no-kill shelters move violent dogs across state border, to clear their bite history, and advertise them as "cute family pets" for adoption.

Dogs breaks out of its enclosure, there is no way to stop or predict that!

Zero responsibility! Zero punishment!

https://spia.princeton.edu/news/taliban-legal-system-and-202...

That’s not how things work. There is one set of rules for us and another set of rules for the oligarchy and their corporate vehicles. It’s just like the Taliban legal code (see above) where the closer you are to the top the more lenient and ‘understanding’ the system.

Edit: worth a pull quote

Article 9 explicitly divides Afghan society into hierarchical categories based on social status, including religious scholars (ulema), elites such as tribal leaders and merchants (ashraf), the middle class, and the so-called lower class, assigning different forms and levels of punishment accordingly. This structure grants partial or full impunity to privileged groups while subjecting marginalized individuals to harsher penalties.

Hey, I'm somewhat of an expert in these things, and would like to lend my knowledge about the subject matter. And I'll bring beers!

Not far away if it could be completely removed with all the other competitive technologies:

https://www.uschamber.com/technology/data-privacy/impacts-of...

And "My Computer Just Became Self Aware"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzJjNQaYEA

no no, qbit is only the lowest sized distillation, that's in turn orchestrated by a bigger model (autobrr/sonar/radarr) which in turn has its top level guidance generated as a system prompt from trash guides by macro tools like trasharr/profilarr

They're not "permanently stored" or "downloaded", they're just cached on his personal, geographically advantageous edge device for low-latency interaction.

Imo for an animation, an English dub is perfectly fine (if the actors are good of course). It's animated, the original language version is also dubbed.

For animation I want to be looking at and appreciating the animation and not the subtitles also.

It's completely different for a live action film however.

- God, moments before casting Adam and Eve out of Heaven

Shhh, do not talk about *senet!

Mine did that too! Sent a link and sign-in credentials to a bunch of people on my contact list. WTF? How can we contain these rogue agents! Won't somebody think of the children!

You connected it to a harness you designed yourself. If I designed a machine gun harness for my dog and installed it, I'd be held accountable for the damage he would do. Wouldn't I?

Buying media doesn't mean the creator gets any real money. I've got a friend that was in a fairly popular band decades ago. Their label made millions of dollars off album sales, he made about enough to buy a used Toyota and a microphone.

In my experience, people justifying their own piracy usually think about it in terms of refusing to give money to unethical/monopolistic publishers. The fact that it results in money not going to the author is sort of abstracted away, by the fact that the publisher is in between. (Some also walk the walk and donate to the artists and authors directly in some way, but many don't.)

The AI arguments I've seen are instead usually justifying it like this: "We're democratizing those skills. You shouldn't have to learn art/writing/coding or pay someone else in order make what you imagine. Therefore, training AI on pirated stuff is worth it for the greater good." So the fact that it will result in artists not getting paid is unavoidable and much harder to ignore in that line of thinking.

> I remember a socialistic coworker of mine—that was bragging about his -arr setup—talking about the end of the culture because authors aren't earning money.

To be fair, you can have it both ways. If you buy-and-pirate, and you buy 4 UHDs per year or 10 albums per year, you've put more money into the industry than the average streamer. Admittedly, buying-and-pirating isn't as commonly done for movies and TV as it is for music, but that can be explained by the increased DRM and lock-in.

There are major differences between an individual illegally downloading movies and a major corporation getting their hands on literally all of Human Creation.

Oh? You don't see why people are riled up? It's because corps pirating is at best a slap on the wrist while People pirating get suicided -- see Aaron Swartz.

This false (IMHO) equivalency is weapon people like to keep handy these days, ready to shoot at any target.

There is all the difference in the world between the scenarios. The argument's popularity seems to be born in the argument, more popular on HN, that American white / Christian / males (or some subset of those factors) face discrimination by programs to benefit minorities / women.

What is the difference? It is power. Punching up or protecting the politically vulnerable is a completely different act than punching down or empowering the already powerful and oppressing the vulnerable. Punching down causes the vulnerable to be oppressed (jailed or otherwise restricted in who, where, what, when, etc they can do and be), impoverished, and killed - by definition, they are vulnerable. The powerful have their power challenged, which is many times appropriate among free people where 'all are created equal' and have the same rights.

In the case of artistic media - songs, books, etc. - private people downloading art to use it as art are spreading art and empowering themselves at the expense of powerful interest who have seized control of the art. That's much different than powerful people taking the art to increase their own profit and power, and to significantly displace and distort the art.

(I'm oversimplifying for these purposes: The fact that artists don't get paid by the former, and that it's anarchy used for bad things too, are serious problems.)

> socialistic

You're giving away your biases. Only a certain group calls everything they don't like 'socialism'. It's libertarianism or anarchism. Socialists might say, for example, the state should control distribution of media.

A truth that in practice does not seem to hold up once your valuation passes a certain threshold.