perhaps, but also they could be confident in their ability but consider it either not the right time for political and likely economic fallout, not the right time to kick off a broader conflict, or simply that they think that whilst they’d win, if they wait and build a bit more they’ll loose less military hardware and lives with a stronger force

if metas monolopoloy is literally the only thing you care about, but replacing a terrible platform with another platform that lacks privacy protections is not much of an upgrade

that’s correct - the issue here is that he has full access to the information that investigators are requesting and is simply refusing to comply with requests

this isn’t shit like a conversation you had with a friend about weed - this is CSAM and drug trafficking

they have apks

i wouldn’t say inferior… mozilla extensions were more performant and flexible, web extensions (ie the initial chrome format - now a standard that most browsers use) are easier to develop, and thus there were a lot more of them

who said anything about every day? any day does not mean every day… having access to all my money whenever i feel like it is freeing - not that i need it all the time

when i had surgery i got a tray of 10 for when the pain became unmanageable, and was told ibuprofen and paracetamol as per instructions otherwise… extremely limited supply is a real help to ensure you understand the “UNMANAGEABLE” part

i ended up using 2 and disposing of the rest

disagreement is fine, but there was literally a thread about “linux disinformation” where the OP asked for examples of things people say about linux that are untrue

the top answers by FAR are that arch is stable

saying that arch is stable, or easy for newcomers is doing the linux ecosystem a disservice

you should never use arch for a server - arbitrary, rather than controlled and well-tested updates to the bleeding edge is literally everything you want to avoid in a server OS

by saying “blows my mind” you’re saying that you think it should be the opposite: you’d expect it to be normal that LGBTQIA+ community would be violent. that expectation is a call, of sorts… like “wouldn’t surprise me if someone beat X”, you’re kinda giving someone permission

could definitely backfire… who knows if NATO want an excuse to show russia that no matter how small they’re not fucking around

branding

okay

the marketing

yup

the plagiarism

woah there! that’s where we disagree… your position is based on the fact that you believe that this is plagiarism - inherently negative

perhaps its best not use loaded language. if we want to have a good faith discussion, it’s best to avoid emotive arguments and language that’s designed to evoke negativity simply by their use, rather than the argument being presented

I happen to be in the intersection of working in the same field, an avid fan of classic Sci-Fi and a writer

its understandable that it’s frustrating, but just because a machine is now able to do a similar job to a human doesn’t make it inherently wrong. it might be useful for you to reframe these developments - it’s not taking away from humans, it’s enabling humans… the less a human has to have skill to get what’s in their head into an expressive medium for someone to consume the better imo! art and creativity shouldn’t be about having an ability - the closer we get to pure expression the better imo!

the less you have to worry about the technicalities of writing, the more you can focus on pure creativity

The point is that the way these models have been trained is unethical. They used material they had no license to use and they've admitted that it couldn't work as well as it does without stealing other people's work

i’d question why it’s unethical, and also suggest that “stolen” is another emotive term here not meant to further the discussion by rational argument

so, why is it unethical for a machine but not a human to absorb information and create something based on its “experiences”?

but that’s just a matter of complexity, not fundamental difference. the way our brains work and the way an artificial neural network work aren’t that different; just that our brains are beyond many orders of magnitude bigger

there’s no particular reason why we can’t feed artificial neural networks an enormous amount of … let’s say tangentially related experiential information … as well, but in order to be efficient and make them specialise in the things we want, we only feed them information that’s directly related to the specialty we want them to perform

there’s some… “pre training” or “pre-existing state” that exists with humans too that comes from genetics, but i’d argue that’s as relevant to the actual task of learning, comprehension, and creating as a BIOS is to running an operating system (that is, a necessary precondition to ensure the correct functioning of our body with our brain, but not actually what you’d call the main function)

i’m also not claiming that an LLM is intelligent (or rather i’d prefer to use the term self aware because intelligent is pretty nebulous); just that the structure it has isn’t that much different to our brains just on a level that’s so much smaller and so much more generic that you can’t expect it to perform as well as a human - you wouldn’t expect to cut out 99% of a humans brain and have them be able to continue to function at the same level either

i guess the core of what i’m getting at is that the self awareness that humans have is definitely not present in an LLM, however i don’t think that self-awareness is necessarily a pre-requisite for most things that we call creativity. i think that’s it’s entirely possible for an artificial neural net that’s fundamentally the same technology that we use today to be able to ingest the same data that a human would from birth, and to have very similar outcomes… given that belief (and i’m very aware that it certainly is just a belief - we aren’t close to understanding our brains, but i don’t fundamentally thing there’s anything other then neurons firing that results in the human condition), just because you simplify and specialise the input data doesn’t mean that the process is different. you could argue that it’s lesser, for sure, but to rule out that it can create a legitimately new work is definitely premature