Oni_eyes

Doesn't the fact that it's not from a well known AI dev or company owner indicate that these types of models are becoming prolific and while inferences may never spike, training each one does still cost a good bit of energy for..... why? Is it a more efficient solution or is it just a way to allow for more privacy while increasing the number of people running their own models and by extension exacerbating the ai energy problem?

Or did I misread a whole bunch?

Articulate the difference. You keep saying I'm missing the point or that there is a difference but you don't state what it is.

You're reading into it too much. I read your response to the other guy and went to the first example my mind thought of for government regulation of foodstuffs that are safe to consume but otherwise banned for a reason.

I for one would eat endangered species if it's all I had access to, but I understand the damage it would cause and am comfortable eating other sources of food. I also do love eating beef and pork and chicken, but I'm willing to reduce consumption of those for other sources if needed.

We see a ton of rainforest being chopped to expand access to cattle farming, tons of pollution runoff from farms, and a history of antibiotic resistance being transferred due to heavy antibiotic use in close quarter factory farms. I would argue those would be equally damaging to not just us, but also many ecosystems and the species in them.

So I draw an equivalence there. If you're not cool with eating endangered species, maybe you can ease off the gas on mammal based protein.

On the other hand, it's looking like we might be able to get around a lot of that damage with lab grown meat.

Would you eat lab grown meat if standard beef/poultry/pork were to be banned?

"And so that is why we are going to seize Taiwan first."

/s

The point being? That it's fine to set government regulation to protect species from being wiped out and that somehow doesn't transfer to it being fine to regulate beef or other meats as we see them negatively affecting a vast swath of ecosystems including many of those endangered species? The harm has to be to the species being regulated and not from the species?

Are endangered species not also safe to eat generally?

They're all crustaceans.

Well whales and giraffes are both mammals, and since they're classed together due to a common ancestor it's fair to say they're related and you could group them together.

Just like how decapods and insects are classed with hexapods under crustacea, effectively making them related due to a common ancestor.

So you could say giraffes (or artiodactylans) are proto whales (or cetaceans) much like you could say crustaceans are proto insects. Or insects of the sea.

Yeah but were they shaped like little alligators?

That's what I was going for. I eat gator nuggets when I find them, they're delicious.

OK now you're just arguing in bad faith. You said the other guys example wasn't equitable because it's conflating banning a material with controlling quality. So I asked you the same concept but with a proper example and instead of responding with a coherent argument, you went with ridicule. Go play in traffic.

Shrimp and lobsters are decapods which belong in the arthropod group right alongside all of our insects. They are water insects by definition.

It's not at all like saying a whale is a fish because while they are both vertebrates, they split much sooner than arthropods do, and they do not share as many similar characteristics.

It would be like saying a shark is a fish (which it is).

Would you eat endangered species if available?

That's a government regulation that controls what you can consume that has nothing to do with food safety.

Stir fried meal worms have the consistency of chips, so it's really down the what seasoning you use. Pretty tasty ngl.