ClamDrinker @ ClamDrinker @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

258

Joined

2 yr. ago

You picked the wrong thread for a nuanced question on a controversial topic.

But it seems the UK indeed has laws for this already if the article is to believed, as they don't currently allow AI companies to train on copyrighted material (As per the article). As far as I know, in some other jurisdictions, a normal person would absolutely be allowed to pull a bunch of publicly available information, learn from it, and decide to make something new based on objective information that can be found within. And generally, that's the rationale AI companies used as well, seeing as there have been landmark cases ruled in the past to not be copyright infringement with wide acceptance for computers analyzing copyrighted information, such as against Google, for indexing copyrighted material in their search results. But perhaps an adjacent ruling was never accepted in the UK (which does seem strange, as Google does operate there). But laws are messy, and perhaps there is an exception somewhere, and I'm certainly not an expert on UK law.

But people sadly don't really come into this thread to discuss the actual details, they just see a headline that invokes a feeling of "AI Bad", and so you coming in here with a reasonable question makes you a target. I wholly expect to be downvoted as well.

Yeah I agree that's a fair enough assumption 😄

Never assumed you did :), but yes, as little assumptions is the best. But as you can already tell, it's hard to communicate when you take no assumptions when people make explicit statements crafted to dispel assumptions, that are entirely plausible for a hypothetical real person to have.

In fact, your original statement of "They have no doubts. Never occurred to them it might be a joke…", is in itself a pretty big assumption. Unless, of course. I assume that statement to be a hyperbole, or even satire. But if we want to have fun talking about a shitpost we do kind of have to decide on an assumptive position on the meme that can't talk back.

People making assumptions is the issue.

There's assumptions involved in detecting satire from just text as well. You would just have a Reverse Poe's law where "any extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for satire of those views without clear indicator of the author's intent".

Normally when people say or type things we (justifiably) assume that to be what they mean, which is why satire works much better when spoken because intonation can make the satire explicit without changing the words or saying it out loud.

As with most things, if you are competent, a degree doesn't really matter. The degree is just a shortcut, and even if it's checked it's no guarantee you are otherwise competent. You're expected to have picked up competency during the time you got your degree.

So this probably works if you are otherwise competent, but if you're not it's just going to lead to increased scrutiny (Because hey, you should know these things) and if someone does end up checking up on you it's a great way to get fired with cause. Depending on how tight knit your industry is that can still make things very hard for you.

And of course, once this becomes frequent enough, you'd be surprised how quickly checking will become the norm again.

One likely reason the backlash has been so strong is because, on a platform as close-knit as Reddit, betrayal cuts deep.

Another laughable quote after the APIcalypse, at least for the people that remained on Reddit after being totally ok with being betrayed.

Yeah, it's literally all over this thread, not exactly a secret. It's kind of a weird nitpick of my comment, considering it's just a way of phrasing things. If I give an alcoholic some money, I will say "they might use that to buy booze". Because I am sure they buy booze, but they might use my money to buy some food instead. Not every single dollar you give the developers will go to ml.

You're not required to do anything, let alone directly funding ml. That's not what I am arguing for. I am arguing for you to support Lemmy despite the chance some of it might go to ml.

It goes the other way too, the developers probably disagree with a large part of the beliefs of people using lemmy, yet they also put in their time to create and foster it, which we never had to pay for either. They did it for the reasons they mention (free spaces, not owned by corporations that suck their users dry), which is separate from their other political positions.

While I understand the moral objections people have to supporting the developers, I do think its fair to highlight how they do not treat us.

We are not a product here to be exploited and advertised to. They also respect your choice to block ml and not to interact with them at all for the rest. I am sure I would be absolutely abhorred by the depth of depravity of your average silicon valley CEO's hot takes, but they dont share it for this exact reason. Instead they just design their entire product and business around it, which is the enshittification we all know and hate.

People you dont agree with having a place of their own on the fediverse is a logical consequence of the idea behind it, and while uncomfortable, is a greater good in the end.

But to maintain that it means putting your money where your mouth. If not to them, to your own instance.

Thanks, I hate it

Except as you demonstrated, it requires quite a few leaps of interpretation, assuming the worst interpretations of OP's statement, which is why it's silly. OP clearly limited their statement to themselves and AI.

Now if OP said, "everyone should use a calculator or die", maybe then it would have been a valid response.

but if you had infinite usable desk space then what, exactly, would be the argument against it?

So I guess we agree then. Circumstances make something more or less optimal, meaning they are not objectively more optimal in every situation. That was my entire point, nothing more.

That's true, and if that's the case then that definitely changes the choice. Although, afaik these smaller keyboards often come with software to remap keys or add macro's at the driver level. (And for this choice specifically, 75% keyboard and higher do seem to mostly have both F keys and home/end). But yeah, some people's use consist of just writing emails and streaming video, in which case they won't care about any of that.

If a full-sized keyboard provides all the keys you reasonably need to do your tasks efficiently, then yes a full-sized keyboard is superior. But that is just not the use case for everyone, hence why it can't be objectively so. Unless you want to imply that more keys even if you don't need them is better anyways.

If so, you could argue this monstrosity of a keyboard (or something even bigger) is what everyone should be using if they have the space, since it has way more buttons than a full-sized keyboard, making it even more objectively superior. In reality you would not use more than 30% of the buttons on that keyboard, so the rest might as well not exist. But if you are, I don't know, some macro-wizard playing 4 instances of WoW at the same time, maybe it is objectively superior for your needs, but for me a normal sized keyboard would do.

But to try and sense where you're coming from, it should also be said that someone telling you their choice is better and disregarding that your criteria aren't the same as theirs is being silly as well. And sometimes they can be stubborn and agitated about that as well - exactly the kind of hostility I meant in my initial comment. But someone's got to step up and swallow their pride and accept it really is just all subjective at the end of the day.

While I love my full-sized keyboard, respectfully - who cares. The whole idea of a PC is the freedom to use whatever you want.

Keyboards, controllers, speech to text, a wii-mote, literal bananas/bread, eye/blink trackers, whatever suits you best. Insisting there's a best device for everyone doesn't change people's minds and just leads to hostility when we should be glad more people are using the device that makes them happy. One day you might be one of them when your circumstances or preferences change.

Helaas :D

Even gechecked, de laatste 5 van de avondshow (behalve de laatste, die was langer) waren 24:03, 23:22, 24:37, 25:11, 25:48 zonder reclameblok en de eerste van LUBACH is 23:12 zonder reclameblok. Je hebt dus sort of gelijk, maar aangezien het een beetje schommelt, en dat interview aan het eind toch al een beetje padding was zie ik het wel als ongeveer hetzelfde, maar we gaan zien of die trend doorzet.

(Also, online met adblocker heb je geen last van dat reclameblok 😄)

Surprised I had to scroll down so far to find 3, it's just the same as 5 but with better grip around the finger tips, which avoids the pen from twisting when you hold it tightly.

Was volgensmij net zo lang als eerder? Ze moeten ook genoeg content maken binnen een dag dus snap wel dat ze niet veel opschalen.

Het stuk over Dick Schoof was geniaal overigens.