TesseraC+
And who hasn't contributed any code to this particular repo (according to github insights).
In September the NixOS constitutional assembly should finish their work, and the community will be able to elect governance. I'm guessing that's when the drama will start getting resolved.
In the meantime, there are multiple maintainers that have left because of the drama - which is more troublesome than the board members leaving - but nixpkgs has a LOT of maintainers, and there are new ones joining all the time. It's still healthy and won't implode so quickly.
- This is not REALLY about copyright - this is an attack on free and open AI models, which would be IMPOSSIBLE if copyright was extended to cover the case of using the works for training.
- It's not stealing. There is literally no resemblance between the training works and the model. IP rights have been continuously strengthened due to lobbying over the last century and are already absurdly strong, I don't understand why people on here want so much to strengthen them ever further.
Linux can totally do that. Even if your distro doesn't package it, you can always install spyware from source.
threads.net is currently blocked. You can see a complete list of blocked instances here. There was a discussion about this when threads first announced plans to federate.
Also, bundling extensions with the browser is not the way to cater to power users - they will install the extensions they want anyway.
If gecko became embeddable (or better yet, servo was finished), so users could make alternative firefox-based browsers, that would be really good for power users. Right now things like qutebrowser are all based on blink, because that's the only option.
They have the right to ingest data, not because they're “just learning like a human would". But because I - a human - have a right to grab all data that's available on the public internet, and process it however I want, including by training statistical models. The only thing I don't have a right to do is distribute it (or works that resemble it too closely).
In you actually show me people who are extracting books from LLMs and reading them that way, then I'd agree that would be piracy - but that'd be such a terrible experience if it ever works - that I can't see it actually happening.
You could have said the same for factories in the 18th century. But instead of the reactionary sentiment to just reject the new, we should be pushing for ways to have it work for everyone.
Oh, no, bad guys can use [insert new technology here], too!
More seriously, yes. And it can also be used to detect scams and spam.
No.
- A pen manufacturer should not be able to decide what people can and can't write with their pens.
- A computer manufacturer should not be able to limit how people use their computers (I know they do - especially on phones and consoles - and seem to want to do this to PCs too now - but they shouldn't).
- In that exact same vein, writers should not be able to tell people what they can use the books they purchased for.
.
We 100% need to ensure that automation and AI benefits everyone, not a few select companies. But copyright is totally the wrong mechanism for that.
lily33
joined 1 year ago
It's not an article about LLMs not using dialects. In fact, they have learned said dialects and will use them if asked.
What they did was, ask the LLM to suggest adjectives associated with sentences - and it would associate more aggressive or negative adjectives with African dialect.
All (racial) bias in AI models is actually a reflection of the training data, not of the modelling.