eicker

True. I suppose I’m being a bit too hopeful there.

Universities drop AI detection tools over fears about accuracy: Some institutions are overhauling assessment and trying to move away from the emphasis on surveillance

To be honest, what surprises me most of all is that, after three decades of intensive digitisation of analogue media, there are still purely analogue copies in existence at all!? In that respect, I see this more as a benefit than a threat, as some people here are suggesting.

Hehe… 🤣

Exactly. In my view, this serves no other purpose than to avoid having to engage with an unpopular opinion. It’s a cheap way of dressing up a personal attack as a supposed argument.

Unfortunately, even with very long texts, this is no longer reliably possible, which is why some universities have recently stopped using such tests.

Reposted in the correct thread…

It’s funny that you still believe some tool could tell, with such short texts, whether they were written by an AI or a human. (And unfortunately, even with very long texts, this is no longer reliably possible, which is why some universities have recently stopped using such tests.)

It’s not about who deserves to win, it’s about incentives. If one side unilaterally slows development while others don’t, the likely outcome is a shift in technological leadership, not a slower pace overall. Whether that’s the US, China, or anyone else is a separate political question from whether voluntary restraint is an effective strategy.

»Slow down AI« sounds noble until you ask who actually slows down: Democracies and companies that comply simply hand the advantage to rivals that don’t. History suggests voluntary technological restraint rarely wins against geopolitical competition. The race doesn’t stop: it just changes leaders.

Pacing the Frontier: A statement from 1,132 employees of frontier AI companies

Exactly. Platform loyalty is a bad archiving strategy. If one platform disappears, changes the rules, or buries old content, your work and links still survive instead of vanishing with someone else’s business decisions.

The irony is that this argument will probably get more attention on Reddit than on any open forum: Centralised platforms are great for discovery and awful for preservation. Use them as the billboard, not the library. Keep the valuable stuff where you control the rules, the backups and the future.

A $250 billion backstop is an extraordinary amount of financial engineering for an industry that’s supposed to be the next industrial revolution: If AI demand is as inevitable as claimed, why does every new data centre seem to require increasingly creative financing and ever larger guarantees?

Nvidia and OpenAI in talks for up to $250 billion dollar backstop to fund AI infrastructure plans

Because it was always so wonderfully easy to do nothing. Costs have risen, and new realities are increasingly being created in both politics and the economy: in France, Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein and so many other places, large and small.

Without a doubt. And yet: without open source, pretty much everything digital would come to an end straight away. Sometimes what’s visible isn’t what really matters.

We’ve spent years telling kids that every problem is solved by putting another screen in front of them. Now we’re discovering that unlimited access to the world’s biggest distraction might not have been the revolutionary education strategy we thought it was. Technology is a tool, not a teaching method.

Ever since facts have been replaced by ideologies, the obvious has increasingly become a mystery.

Absolutely. Trust isn’t binary, and it isn’t unique to Chinese models either. Every (frontier) model reflects the incentives, values and constraints of whoever built it. That’s exactly why competition matters.