The problem with saying LLMs are AI - let alone a step towards AGI - is that they cannot create.

I’m not sure if there’s an intrinsic difference between humans and LLMs here. What we, including children, do is just re-hashing, re-combinating what they’ve seen / heard. I think it would be very difficult to prove that people come up with completely brand-new ideas without any external inspiration (= training input).

The examples are not really convincing of your point. The GPT output is pretty good given the ask, I’m not sure if my daughter would fare better.

I’m not a fan of discussing such terms since it devolves into arguing vague definitions.

Assuming LLMs are not intelligent, they prove that you can do heck of a lot without even being intelligent.

This is not just some random Musk garbage, but actual Twitter privacy policy and publuc should be thus be aware.

GPT might not be a step towards AGI, but it proves that even non-general AI can be pretty strong and have a very wide range of applications.

Batteries were phone specific but it wasn’t a big problem to find them. I bought several for my Note 3 and it allowed me to use the phone for a long time.

Isn’t Samsung DEX exactly that?

You can get way more compact mirrorless, my Fuji X-E3 + 35mm f/2 is 550g and the difference in image quality is very clear.

That switch was more than 10 years ago.

Forcing people to be responsible for more than their immediate actions

What you’re saying is that children should carry the responsibility for the acts of their ancestors.

if I include an unjust status quo in my reasoning, then I might also use violence to free myself from the consequences of past violence, but that would not create a “cycle” wherein a stable, nonviolent state cannot be reached, since every “allowed” instance of violence would still only be associated one-to-one with an equivalent instance of “disallowed” violence.

Who’s the judge of whether it’s “allowed” violence? If we say that the status quo of Franco-German relationship is built on the past injustice, and that this should be fixed, who will count all the past centuries of wars and massacres and calculate the outstanding balance?

Because if you let it both sides do it for themselves, then they both will naturally come to the conclusion that they’ve been unjustly treated and that the other side has to pay for that. In the end it will be the stronger one, not the morally correct one, who wins. For a time, then the sides will switch => cycle of violence is IMHO unavoidable if you hold the opinion that past sins are never forgotten.

Now, if my family’s wealth was robbed long ago, I would have a right to recover it

History is basically never so nicely clear-cut. I mean, have you studied your family tree and made sure that all of that family wealth was gathered via perfectly moral means? What if it turns out that your grand grandfather was a soldier who brought home some gold of dubious origins?

The problem is that it’s all a huge “what if” amenable for any narrative you want. In the end it provides justification for the never ending cycle of violence on people having no personal guilt.

Sure, but a much smaller one.

It’s not about the resolution which as you mention is already more than sufficient. But you can easily see bad optics, bad color rendition, oversharpening etc. on a 500px image.

Cam girls are going to lose their jobs.

You can clearly see a qualitative difference between good and bad cameras even onf facebook-sized photos.

Outside of UK, Coventry is mainly known for the bombing, is there some connection to its current bad state?

DarkTable

GIMP

KDE

Kdenlive

My POV is that old events whose participants are dead stop being relevant for future moral actions. We should prefer justice for the living as opposed to justice for the already dead.

If you condemn the events leading to the status quo, then it’s necessarily the case that you should not take the status quo as any sort of ethical baseline.

That’s quite impractical since all nations and their borders were established as a result of unethical conquest. This can be used as a justification for an unending cycle of violence.

The only people in Taiwan with the right to self determination are the Taiwanese Indigenous peoples and Taiwan’s proletariat.

There are no indigenous peoples in Taiwan. We all come from Africa.

Having established the extreme, where do you cut the line who can exert self-determination? Most inhabitants of Taiwan were born in Taiwan, on what ground can’t they decide their fate?

The only thing about that that’s changed from 1945 to 2023 is the criteria for being a “great power”. Then, it meant being a winner of WW2. Now, it means having a large nuclear arsenal.

No, the criteria didn’t change, it’s still the original set of countries with the permanent seat and veto power. It’s also unlikely to change.