unnecessarily pedantic/argumentative
That's what we're here for!
planish
joined 2 years ago
They love to publish drivers that worked with like 1 release of X 5 years ago when the card came out and never update them.
Except when they update them and it breaks X.
Why, though?
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.
This comment is excellent. You now have ten trillion LemBux.
I don't think this is true.
The models (or maybe the characters in the conversations simulated by the models) can be spectacularly bad at basic reasoning, and misunderstand basic concepts on a regular basis. They are of course completely insane; the way they think is barely recognizable.
But they also, when asked, are often able to manipulate concepts or do reasoning and get right answers. Ask it to explain the water cycle like a pirate, and you get that. You can find the weights that make the Eifel Tower be in Paris and move it to Rome, and then ask for a train itinerary to get there, and it will tell you to take the train to Rome.
I don't know what "understanding" something is other than to be able to get right answers when asked to think about it. There's some understanding of the water cycle in there, and some of pirates, and some of European geography. Maybe not a lot. Maybe it's not robust. Maybe it's superficial. Maybe there are still several differences in kind between whatever's there and the understanding a human can get with a brain that isn't 100% the stream of consciousness generator. But not literally zero.
I think you might have to contact all the instances yourself, depending on what the relationship between the instances is. Neither instance is really contracting with the other for data processing; it's more like one instance publishes something and the other instances download and republish it, and everyone agrees that that is what they are supposed to do. So if you and your affiliates have to delete someone's data from a GDPR demand, it can't really apply to just other people who copied it?
I am, of course, three European lawyers in a trench coat, and this is impeccable legal advice that physically cannot be wrong.
Call your lawyer and sue the shit out of those raccoons. I hear they're rich.
This is all terrible.
If I go on Mastodon am I supposed to check that the author of each toot hasn't done any crimes somehow before I click the little boost button? How would one actually go about doing that?
If you actually know someone has done or continues to do bad things that ought to get them ejected from the space, are you supposed to respond to that by refusing to interact with them while they are in the space, when they are not doing the bad things, as a sort of poorly coordinated attempt to eject them?
If we have a list of people so terrible that being nice to them means we should exclude you, then why the hell are they still here?
I think if you want to write a fake story, you need to make sure that by the end of it people realize they've been had. A high-effort troll is entertaining. A person who writes a story that just happens to not be true is just wasting everybody's time.
EDIT: What if OP wasn't a Reddit story faker? 😮
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.