Most politicians in the West don’t actually care about humanitarian issues in China. That has almost nothing to do with why we don’t play nice.

Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.

It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.

I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.

I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.

Those analogies don’t make any sense.

Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?

While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.

It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.

It triggers me that this is a pie chart. First of all it implies there are advantages even if they aren’t keyed in. But most importantly pie charts only measure the weight of something within within its own context as a fraction of the whole.

LLMs don’t “know” anything. The true things they say are just as much bullshit as the falsehoods.

Literally Bill Gates.

Who’s labor?

I can’t imagine it doing much. Samuels is a joke, Omar has no serious competition and neither does Klobuchar. It’s unfortunate because despite what you think about these politicians, competition is a good thing to prevent stagnation.

I don’t need the acrimonious screeds of a racist incel to tell me how language should function. I communicate daily, in English, both on and offline, and have yet to witness this breakdown of communication you’re decrying.

Call me crazy but I mess my fries up and eat them with a fork.

I wouldn’t judge a book by its cover. Following aesthetic trends is just being savvy, it’s not necessarily compensating for something.

Unless he paid for it I don’t see how the two things are remotely equivalent. I’d take someone having thousands of vile images on their computer over someone who abused a child or animal even once.

Played the first two, cringy and tedious. And this is coming from someone who loves plenty of pulp and grindy games.

Prescriptivists try not to be weird challenge.

Dicey Dungeons and Wingspan.

Yes, when people are explaining the results of the 2024 election they are going to look to an obscure federated social media. 🙄

Even if Kamala is the only alternative, my point is that Kamala losing doesn’t mean Joe would have won, and her winning doesn’t mean he would have lost.

This is illogical. That’s impossible to know unless you have a looking glass into the alternate timeline where Biden doesn’t drop out, as well as the timelines of different people replacing him.