BraveSirZaphod @ BraveSirZaphod @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

1,142

Joined

2 yr. ago

So there's this thing called the internet, which has dictionaries on it.

Also, 1984 is a great fiction novel, but the linguistics within it is more than a little shoddy. Not to mention, Republicans are not as smart as you think they are.

Reducing inflation by cutting the cost of imports would be one reason.

Of course, the consequence of that is that voters in the Rust Belt hate you and you lose re-election, so that explains that one pretty easily.

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” - Hillary Clinton

If only we had Pokemon-gone to the polls.

Well, thank you for at least openly admitting that you have the reading comprehension of a middle schooler so I can save my time elsewhere.

Validating attacking random merchant ships as an effective political tactic is not a good idea, actually. This will just lead to Iran attacking ships every time it wants something.

Israel should scale down operations in Gaza, yes. Houthi military positions that are launching these attacks should also be obliterated to make it very clear that is is not an acceptable tactic.

Ignoring how fucked up it is to take pleasure in people's deaths, let me remind you that there are some people, even in blue states, that cannot receive various vaccinations due to health risks and thus are entirely reliant on herd immunity.

Also, disproportionately doesn't mean "solely".

AI haters are not applying the same standards to humans that they do to generative AI

I don't think it should go unquestioned that the same standards should apply. No human is able to look at billions of creative works and then create a million new works in an hour. There's a meaningfully different level of scale here, and so it's not necessarily obvious that the same standards should apply.

If it’s spitting out sentences that are direct quotes from an article someone wrote before and doesn’t disclose the source then yeah that is an issue.

A fundamental issue is that LLMs simply cannot do this. They can query a webpage, find a relevant chunk, and spit that back at you with a citation, but it is simply impossible for them to actually generate a response to a query, realize that they've generated a meaningful amount of copyrighted material, and disclose its source, because it literally does not know its source. This is not a fixable issue unless the fundamental approach to these models changes.

There is literally no resemblance between the training works and the model.

This is way too strong a statement when some LLMs can spit out copyrighted works verbatim.

https://www.404media.co/google-researchers-attack-convinces-chatgpt-to-reveal-its-training-data/

A team of researchers primarily from Google’s DeepMind systematically convinced ChatGPT to reveal snippets of the data it was trained on using a new type of attack prompt which asked a production model of the chatbot to repeat specific words forever.

Often, that “random content” is long passages of text scraped directly from the internet. I was able to find verbatim passages the researchers published from ChatGPT on the open internet: Notably, even the number of times it repeats the word “book” shows up in a Google Books search for a children’s book of math problems. Some of the specific content published by these researchers is scraped directly from CNN, Goodreads, WordPress blogs, on fandom wikis, and which contain verbatim passages from Terms of Service agreements, Stack Overflow source code, copyrighted legal disclaimers, Wikipedia pages, a casino wholesaling website, news blogs, and random internet comments.

Beyond that, copyright law was designed under the circumstances where creative works are only ever produced by humans, with all the inherent limitations of time, scale, and ability that come with that. Those circumstances have now fundamentally changed, and while I won't be so bold as to pretend to know what the ideal legal framework is going forward, I think it's also a much bolder statement than people think to say that fair use as currently applied to humans should apply equally to AI and that this should be accepted without question.

I'm not remotely knowledgeable on labor practices of the time period, but at least in the modern era, you can easily pay an executive basically nothing and just give him stock instead, which will wind up being far more valuable than any salary. Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, takes a salary of $1. I wouldn't be shocked if something to that effect existed back then as well.

Ah you're definitely right, my bad for over-simplifying a bit. Thanks for clarifying!

Universal healthcare simply describes the situation where essentially all people have access to affordable care.

The simplest model is to have basically all healthcare done and paid for by the government and funded by taxes. This is called single payer, with the National Health Service is Britain being the most famous example, but it's not the only way to get universal coverage, though people who support single payer often conflate the terms. Other European counties have mixes of public and private coverage.

I know corporate America doesn't really deserve any meaningful amount of good faith, but for whatever truth is worth, "sustainable" in a business context has essentially always meant financials. A platform like Twitch is generally going to have really high operational costs between infrastructure, network traffic, engineers, and revenue sharing with streamers, and given that Amazon doesn't operate Twitch for charity any more than you do your job for free, they need to make sure that they actually have sufficient revenue to be able to make the finances sustainable. I won't pretend to know how profitable it is, if it even is yet, but cutting employees is obviously a pretty easy lever to pull to reduce costs if your operations can get away with it.

Sure, you could have a cartel, but cartels only really work in industries that have very high barriers to entry, like oil production. Non-members have every incentive to undercut the cartel, and if it's reasonably easy to enter the market, someone will do that.

It's not particularly hard to buy stuff from Canada and re-sell it.

I certainly hope you're not a man, since I don't know if I can trust someone who's apparently partially responsible for essentially all mass shootings.

I mean, that's the entire point, yes. Some financial transactions, at some level of scale, should not be private.

For instance, if you abolish KYC, you've just fully legalized all insider trading. Perhaps you can see that there are some conflicts of interest there. On the crypto side, KYC allows the IRS to go after traders for capital gains tax. Without it, crypto would be an easy way for the ultra-wealthy to just completely bypass taxes, since you couldn't prove that it belonged to them.

That subset is actually about 1 in 8 insulin users, so I imagine those people are pretty happy about it.

And Trump didn't repeal Obamacare or make Mexico pay for a wall. Welcome to politics; politicians tend to speak more in wish-lists than easily actionable items.

They're referring to the $35 monthly insulin cap contained within Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Perhaps the Department of Health and Human Services is a good enough source for you?

Effective January 1, 2023, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are capped at $35 per monthly prescription among Medicare Part D enrollees under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). A similar cap takes effect in Medicare Part B on July 1, 2023.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/insulin-affordability-ira-data-point

Bit of advice: If you're not familiar with a situation, you should do deeper research than a quick Google search and stopping the moment you find an unrelated article that affirms your bias.

I always wonder what proposal you people actually suggest that isn't Joe Biden walking into the Senate with a gun and pointing it at Manchin.

Please identify the Congressional term that had a pro-choice majority that could have passed federal abortion protections but did not. Do beware of the caveat that up until quite recently, the Democrats had a substantial minority faction of anti-abortion politicians from the south.

No one who's complained about the Dems apparently just deciding to miss what would be one of their greatest political victories for shits and giggles has ever been able to identify when this would have actually passed, but hey, maybe you'll be the first one.