My view of the socialist position on China is that it is not "the Chinese state is good", but rather "stop being mean to Chinese people".
China is an empire, and socialists hate empires. But the US is also an empire (in that there's a core that gets all the good stuff and a periphery that gets the good stuff extracted from it, which for the US is often places not technically in the country but in practice obligated to listen to it). So when the US comes in all scandalized and decides that what we really need to do to save people from the Chinese empire is to make sure that US companies don't lose market share in GPU computing, and can manufacture solar panels at competitive prices, and that people get their short videos from Instagram Reels and not TikTok, the socialists are very suspicious. The net result looks a lot more like imperial protectionism and/or racism than a coherent anti-imperial program.
I'm not sure why this ends up as a socialist talking point? Maybe because the nonsense of the policies seems obvious? Maybe because it seems like warmongering and wars are terrible and so it must be stopped at once? Maybe just to get a break from telling people that they should probably make sure people have houses?
Defederating instances on ideological grounds isn't a bad idea IMHO, and I can see why people might not want their feeds to end up full of people who just sort of assume that what we're here to do is use facts and logic to destroy western propaganda, with the goal of bringing about the downfall of the International Monetary Fund. That sounds like an extremely tiring project to be involved in; you wouldn't want to hang out with somebody who does that in every thread.
But I think it's important for the reason here to be that Hexbear is embarking on a project of ideological warfare. Not that the community consensus there is that the IMF is a bad idea. A load of communists is probably fine, while a load of evangelical communists determined to exactly follow the letter of every rule while maximizing the amount that they can evangelize is probably not fine.
I subscribed to too many YouTubes. Then I tried to watch all the good videos from the YouTubes I was subscribed to.
I can sort of almost keep up? If I go and watch YouTube constantly I can clear like 6 months' backlog in 2 months. But then at the end of the 2 months I'm like, was all that stuff really any better than the new stuff that's showing up today? Or than the other stuff I would have been watching or listening to? And the answer is really no.
So I think next time I take an interest in YouTube I'm not going to try and clear the backlog. It's not like it won't be there later; if I hear of a great video, I can go and watch it. And anything that won't be there latter is deliberately designed to exclude me, so why would I want it?
Whatever you decide to participate in, you're participating in that thing. You can't actually participate in anything if you keep going around trying to participate in everything at once.
I have found Mastodon still does that. And it turned out to be a problem, actually. I just kept going on there for no reason and reading like 100 nothings.
I'm definitely the other way, I want to see the stuff that's there because I asked for it, and I want to ping pong around from people to the people they talk to to find new people. If I don't already know of at least one interesting person or instance, why am I even joining the thing?
I appreciate having a list of people I could follow, but if there isn't one I remember how to make my own fun.
I think the right way is to put the post URL into your instance search and find the version of it on your instance. Then you hit the cross post button on it (the two squares, next to the star) and the post form should show up populated to do a cross-post.
I have indeed made a list of ridiculous and heretofore unobserved things somebody could be. I'm trying to gesture at a principle here.
If you can't make your own hormones, store bought should be fine. If you are bad at writing, you should be allowed to use a computer to make you good at writing now. If you don't have legs, you should get to roll, and people should stop expecting you to have legs. None of these differences between people, or in the ways that people choose to do things, should really be important.
But for text to be a derivative work of other text, you need to be able to know by looking at the two texts and comparing them.
Training an AI on a copyrighted work might necessarily involve making copies of the work that would be illegal to make without a license. But the output of the AI model is only going to be a for-copyright-purposes derivative work of any of the training inputs when it actually looks like one.
Did the AI regurgitate your book? Derivative work.
Did the AI spit out text that isn't particularly similar to any existing book? Which, if written by a human, would have qualified as original? Then it can't be a derivative work. It might not itself be a copyrightable product of authorship, having no real author, but it can't be secretly a derivative work in a way not detectable from the text itself.
Otherwise we open ourselves up to all sorts of claims along the lines of "That book looks original, but actually it is a derivative work of my book because I say the author actually used an AI model trained on my book to make it! Now I need to subpoena everything they ever did to try and find evidence of this having happened!"
In the future, some people might not be human. Or some people might be mostly human, but use computers to do things like fill in for pieces of their brain that got damaged.
Some people can't regognize faces, for example, but computers are great at that now and Apple has that thing that is Google Glass but better. But a law against doing facial recognition with a computer, and allowing it to only be done with a brain, would prevent that solution from working.
And currently there are a lot of people running around trying to legislate exactly how people's human bodies are allowed to work inside, over those people's objections.
I think we should write laws on the principle that anybody could be a human, or a robot, or a river, or a sentient collection of bees in a trench coat, that is 100% their own business.
Is it because we can't explain the causal relationships between the words in the text and the human's output or actions?
If a very good neuroscientist traced out the engineer's brain and could prove that, actually, if it wasn't for the comma on page 73 they wouldn't have used exactly this kind of bolt in the bridge, now is the human's output derivative of the text?
Any rule we make here should treat people who are animals and people who are computers the same.
And even regardless of that principle, surely a set of AI weights is either not copyrightable or else a sufficiently transformative use of almost anything that could go into it? If it decides to regurgitate what it read, that output could be infringing, same as for a human. But a mere but-for causal connection between one work and another can't make text that would be non-infringing if written by a human suddenly infringing because it was generated automatically.
You kind of can though? The bigger models aren't really more complicated, just bigger. If you can cram enough ram or swap into a laptop, lamma.cpp will get there eventually.
My view of the socialist position on China is that it is not "the Chinese state is good", but rather "stop being mean to Chinese people".
China is an empire, and socialists hate empires. But the US is also an empire (in that there's a core that gets all the good stuff and a periphery that gets the good stuff extracted from it, which for the US is often places not technically in the country but in practice obligated to listen to it). So when the US comes in all scandalized and decides that what we really need to do to save people from the Chinese empire is to make sure that US companies don't lose market share in GPU computing, and can manufacture solar panels at competitive prices, and that people get their short videos from Instagram Reels and not TikTok, the socialists are very suspicious. The net result looks a lot more like imperial protectionism and/or racism than a coherent anti-imperial program.
I'm not sure why this ends up as a socialist talking point? Maybe because the nonsense of the policies seems obvious? Maybe because it seems like warmongering and wars are terrible and so it must be stopped at once? Maybe just to get a break from telling people that they should probably make sure people have houses?