Just absolutely demolish the toilet every time you use it.
Make them suck out that half-a-ply-ass-TP with oil rig equipment.
Just absolutely demolish the toilet every time you use it.
Make them suck out that half-a-ply-ass-TP with oil rig equipment.
It is. HDMI is proprietary technology.
DisplayPort ftw
We don’t infringe copyright; The model output is an emergent new thing and not just a recital of its inputs
This argument always seemed silly to me. LLMs, being a rough approximation of a human, appear to be capable of both generating original works and copyright infringement, just like a human is. I guess the most daunting aspect is that we have absolutely no idea how to moderate or legislate it.
This isn’t even particularly surprising result. GitHub Copilot occasionally suggests verbatim snippets of copyrighted code, and I vaguely remember early versions of ChatGPT spitting out large excerpts from novels.
Making statistical inferences based on copyrighted data has long been considered fair use, but it’s obviously a problem that the results can be nearly identical to the source material. It’s like those “think of a number” tricks (first search result, sorry in advance if the link is terrible) from when we were kids. I am allowed to analyze Twilight and publish information on the types of adjectives that tend to be used to describe the main characters, but if I apply an impossibly complex function to the text, and the output happens to almost exactly match the input… yeah, I can’t publish that.
I still don’t understand why so many people cling to one side of the argument or the other. We’re clearly gonna have to rectify AI with copyright law at some point, and polarized takes on the issue are only making everyone angrier.
SimCity 2013 was definitely worse. Sims in that game don’t have persistent identities: they go ti the nearest available job opening every morning, and they sleep in a different bed every night.
Well, no one in a 90s-era sitcom has used the phrase in decades either ;P
They probably will, and your incompetence would be one of the least personal pieces of information modern vehicles collect about you. Actually, I would guess that all car manufacturers already have this data; the car just doesn’t act on it.
From what I read, the mandated system cannot be activated remotely. The bill describes a local subsystem that somehow determines if the driver is incompetent and disabled the car. The only real danger here, imo, is the extreme vagueness of the “somehow” (not to discredit the seriousness of this danger).
So, just to be clear, you believe that whatever happens should follow the letter of some international law, even if it is disadvantageous to virtually everyone involved? I’m not, nor was I ever, arguing with your claim of legal precedent, and your argument does not make my question “incompatible”; I’m not sure how you convinced yourself of that. It’s a question, and not something you must agree to for the conversation to move forward.
I’m asking for practical advantages, not an interpretation of international law.
How so? That is a historical precedent, not a tangible benefit. Can you even name one?
I fail to see any tangible benefits of ceding islands inhabited almost exclusively by British and French people to a former Spanish colony, but perhaps you know more than I do.
Negotiations are great, but surely you realize that Argentina shouldn’t expect (or want) to gain sovereignty over the Falklands?
I would never quote it as scientific fact without scientific evidence, but it does withstand some scrutiny. Hunting is dangerous.
10 alive men + 5 alive women + 5 dead women = 0-5 babies
10 alive women + 5 alive men + 5 dead men = 0-10 babies
If that isn’t evolutionary pressure, I don’t know what is
What about carrots, onions, etc?
I, uh… I made the same assumption, but unfortunately it wasn’t sarcastic. I imagined it being like two bros that have an alcohol problem but don’t “believe” in rehab (whatever that means), so they make a deal to check each other’s recycle bins and call each other out when they’re not keeping it under 3 a day.
I think the reason for the dichotomy is their purported motivation for doing so.
I say “purported” because I know Lemmy has a bone to pick with Apple’s privacy claims, and I would prefer to gracefully avoid it, but I will say that, regardless of the extent to which Apple collects user data, it is easy to ensure that they aren’t hyper-aggressively monetizing it.
You and I think it is, but most people aren’t delivery drivers, and most of those people frankly don’t have the time to even think about it.
The fact of the matter is that industry protectionism will always look silly to the average person while simultaneously being offered a better solution. On the other hand, being loud about our belief that former members of the industry shouldn’t be absolutely fucked over by automation may actually convince some people to support UBI.
Yes, we should. I just think that only happens when enough of us won’t shut up about UBI, not when we won’t shut up about how we shouldn’t use drones for delivery drivers even if they’re superior. The latter will always be a losing argument when it comes to the general populace because the word they care most about in that sentence is “superior”.
They had me until this one lmao