I must say when I came across the Wall Street Journal's article my first reaction was, well yes we do get a good offer for Internet access over here in France. When my sister went to England recently I was looking at the prices for her and I was pretty astonished. I mean there were a few cheap offers but they were often accompanied with small print that indicated that you had a 5 Gig bandwidth limit for example and/or a 128K connection and that was it. No Wifi included and I can remember one offer saying and if you want to share the line it will cost you more.
Here in France I have a 7-8 Mbps connection, free national and European land line calls and also free calls to North American land lines, a box that I can add a PCMCIA Wifi card to if I want and as the article says you can also get TV channels (which I don't subsribe to). However I use Neuf Telecom and not Free.
It's surprising that France should have been successful here whereas the pro-deregulation countries like the US and the UK have created a system where sole the owners of the telecom companies are getting the best out of the situation rather and consumers are just there to fill their pockets without being a innovation motivator...
I question the reliability and accuracy of Generative AI (GenAI) in enterprise scenarios, particularly when faced with adversarial questions, highlighting that current Large Language Models (LLMs) may be data-rich but lack in reasoning and causality. I would call for a more balanced approach to AI adoption in cases of assisting users, requiring supervision, and the need for better LLM models that can be trusted, learn, and reason.
I discuss my experience with chatbots, contrasting older rules-based systems with newer GenAI (General Artificial Intelligence) chatbots. We cannot dismiss the creative capabilities of GenAI-based chatbots, but these systems lack reliability, especially in customer-facing applications, and improvements in the way AI is structured could lead to a "software renaissance," potentially reducing society's technical debt.
The article discusses the contrasting debate on how AI safety is and should be managed, its impact on technical debt, and its societal implications.
It notes the Center for AI Safety's call for a worldwide focus on the risks of AI, and Meredith Whittaker's criticism that such warnings preserve the status quo, strengthening tech giants' dominance. The piece also highlights AI's potential to decrease societal and technical debt by making software production cheaper, simpler, and resulting in far more innovation. It provides examples of cost-effective open-source models that perform well and emphasizes the rapid pace of AI innovation. Last, the article emphasises the need for adaptive legislation to match the pace of AI innovation, empowering suitable government entities for oversight, defining appropriate scopes for legislation and regulation, addressing ethical issues and biases in AI, and promoting public engagement in AI regulatory decisions.
Japan has made its ruling on the situation between Content creators and Businesses. Japanese companies that use AI have the freedom to use content for training purposes without the burden of copyright laws. This news about the copyright laws in Japan reported over at Technomancers is seen as Businesses: 1 / Content Creators: 0 The […]
[...] This also brings me to talk about an article in the financial times that seems to argue in favour of letting the companies do the bidding and selling of there services as usual. But I can’t stop thinking that there is an analogy between this and the way that France created a system that regulates telecom companies and strives to stop abuse from companies that have real power over others, resulting in innovative services and prices for the consumers. [...]