General_Effort @ General_Effort @lemmy.world

Posts

70

Comments

1,283

Joined

2 yr. ago

I guess, when you have to make all your own clothes from scratch by hand, the advantage becomes apparent. People without armor also fought naked in battles. Understandable if you need to handwash and mend your clothes.

Athletes that are deemed to be male at birth, as evidenced by the presence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene) or with a difference of sexual development (DSD) where male androgenization occurs, will be eligible to compete in the male category.

Athletes that are deemed to be female at birth, as evidenced by the presence of XX chromosomes or the absence of Y chromosome genetic material (the SRY gene) or with a DSD where male androgenization does not occur, will be eligible to compete in the female category.

Oh wow. What's social construction? points

I don't think this person is well but I appreciate their effort.

It actually is. Do you even nerd, bro?

Most people don't care about locked-down tech. They don't have the skills necessary to use anything open, and that's fine. You have to pick what you do with your limited time.

OTOH, many people want to have control over their data. That means having control over other people's computers. It's not just the copyright industry demanding money, or Big Tech building walled gardens. You can see a lot of users on Lemmy demanding that kind of control. That means that computing devices of all kinds must become more locked-down and remote-controllable.

So that's where I see us going.

When I read new radiodont, I thought this would be about a hilarious screw-up in the radiology department.

Oh well. Radiodont stick your head in the particle accelerator.

He didn't write that to teach but to vent. The intended audience is people who already know.

For more information on ChatGPT's current capabilities, consult the API docs. I found that to be the most concise source of reliable information. And under no circumstances, believe anything about AI that you read on Lemmy.

Kudos for being willing to learn.

Yersinia pestis actually kills fleas. It causes a blockage in their intestines, causing them to starve. That means they will sting a lot in a futile attempt to get sustenance, but all that happens is that they regurgitate YP into the victim. It's a really neat mechanism but very unethical. I hope modern bioweapons labs have vegan alternatives.

What wouldn't be ethical about it? Seems implausible that any private details would be leaked.

ETA: Sounds like a clever idea.

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

― Vladimir Ilich Lenin

This comment is not legal advice.

People have experimented with that sort of thing. Here's a DIY for going into 3rd person mode using a camera on a stick and some electronics in a backpack. Bit of googling also finds me body swap experiments, but nothing on a crotch perspective.

If I submit code to ReactOS that was trained on leaked Microsoft Windows code, what are the legal implications?

None. There is a good chance that leaked MS code found its way into training data, anyway.

Fair enough. We have pain receptors all over our internal organs, and I can't figure out what they are good for. Maybe teach us to avoid blunt force trauma?

I think our ancestors cracked nuts with their teeth. I think those nerves might help to get that right.

Hey everyone! We have this skyscraper sized tank of hydrogen and oxidizer! Who wants to sit on top when we light it on fire?

You mean legally? Yeah, no problem. It depends on the location, though. In the EU, the rights-holder can opt out. So if you want to do it in the EU you have to pay off Reddit, Meta, and so on. In Japan, it's fine regardless. In the US, it should turn out similarly, but it's up to the courts to work out the details, and it's quite up in the air if you can trust the system to work.

The usual tends to be that the platform can do basically whatever. That shouldn't really be surprising. But I see your point. If you literally want consent, not just legally licensed material, then you need more than just a clause in the TOS.

You could raise the same issue with permissively licensed material. People who released it may not have foreseen AI training as a use, and might not have wanted to actually allow it.

For example. Bear in mind that each animal needs to figure that out on its own as it grows up. Have you heard about humans who are unable to feel pain? Very rare congenital condition. Doctors remove their baby teeth or else they will chew up their tongue and mouth. That's the sort of thing you need to think about.

A number of animals, birds especially, swallow rocks to help them grind up food in their intestine.

It's important to not destroy your teeth. For wild animals, that means starvation. Given that you can't have nerves right in the enamel, it makes sense to have nerves lower down and make them very sensitive. I have the pet theory that we evolved to hate that teeth grinding sound for exactly the same reason.

If those nerves were vestigial, they really should have disappeared by now.

For images, yes. Most notable is probably Adobe. Their AI, which powers photoshop's generative fill among other things, is trained on public domain and licensed works.

For text, there's nothing similar. LLMs get better the more data you have. So, the less training data you use, the less useful they are. I think there are 1 or a few small models for research purposes, but it really doesn't get you there.

Of course, such open source projects are tricky. When you take these extreme, maximalist views of (intellectual) property, then giving stuff away for free isn't the obvious first step.

Hmm. Something about it feels just wrong to me. I'm fairly sure, though, that it's a gut feeling and nothing logical. Because teeth on the outside? Because sensory organs in teeth? IDK.