They’re mostly all national security threats, especially with Elon and Putin having a special relationship.

It’s like squid game where they identify you by a number. Long live user4616250

Yes, I’ll take one Dell Pro Max Premium please. Heck, while we’re it, please make it a Dell Pro Max Premium Ultra Deluxe with Extra Sprinkles.

It’s a great idea for a way to encourage donations to these projects.

Also, they handle multiple orders. So, by the time you get your food it’s lukewarm at best, but likely cold and soggy.

Last time I checked out of curiosity, this Mexican place near me sells burritos for $12. After fees and tips, it would’ve been $28 on Uber Eats. It’s just not worth it to me to pay extra, when I can easily drive the 10 minutes myself.

I agree USB-C is small enough, but micro and mini usb were not reversible. I don’t think Apple was intentionally making cables that fell apart easily. I agree that they did, but I don’t think it had some profit motive behind it. Apple makes dumb design decisions some times because their designers like certain looks or materials. I just honestly think the designers liked the material of the cable and its feel. It was admittedly nice, but it just falls apart within a year of everyday use. Now they’ve changed to a cloth material.

Seems like a bit of an overreaction. The complaint you’re making is about the cable not the connector. The cable can still fray near the tip with a USB-C given enough wear and tear.

The lightning connector was great for its time, moving Apple devices off the giant serial connectors present on the iPod and early iPhone. In comparison, the lightning connector was small, reversible, and durable. It’s still even smaller than USB-C today.

But OpenAI has received more than $13 billion in funding from Microsoft over the years, and that money has come with a strange contractual agreement that OpenAI would stop allowing Microsoft to use any new technology it develops after AGI is achieved

The real motivation is to not be beholden to Microsoft

Most of these robots are backed by humans working remotely

The problem with ads is advertisers want to be able to target specific groups of people, which means the platform needs to violate your privacy to get that information.

Pretty sure they caught him in a lie or two

Thank god, give me my HMAC hash please.

Nothing more terrifying than losing your phone number these days because of all the accounts tied to it via 2FA.

I think you’re using the word fact in two senses here.

I am making an argument that ChatGPT and other AI models were created by copyrighted works and my “proof” is the “fact” that it can reproduce those works verbatim or state facts about them that can be derived from nowhere else but in the original copyrighted work or a derivative copyrighted work that used the original under fair use.

Now, the question is — is it fair use under copyright law, for AI models to be built with copyrighted materials?

If it is considered fair use, I’m guessing it would have a chilling effect on human creativity given that no creator can guarantee themselves a living if their style of works can be reproduced so cheaply without them once AI has been trained using their works as inputs. So, it would then become necessary to revisit copyright law to redefine fair use such that we don’t discourage creators. AI can only really “remix” what it has seen before. If nothing new is being created because AI has killed all incentive to make new things, it will stagnate and degrade.

Also, what games are really maxing out the ram? My impression is that most modern GPUs are overkill in this pretty stagnant video game market.

I think you’re missing the point. We are talking about whether it is fair use under the law for an AI model to even ingest copyrighted works and for those works to be used as a basis to generate the model’s output without the permission of the copyright holder of those works. This is an unsettled legal question that is being litigated right now.

Also, in some cases, the models do produce verbatim quotes of original works. So, it’s not even like we’re just arguing about whether the AI model stated some “facts.” We are also saying, hey can an AI model verbatim reproduce an actual copyrighted work? It’s settled law that humans cannot do that except in limited circumstances.

I like to think we’re the best of the best, at least on some instances.

I’m guessing the worst of the worst will hang back at Xitter because they’d otherwise be banned elsewhere, and it will be a cesspool not unlike 8chan.

I gotta be honest, the push notification summaries are more annoying than they are useful. Like. I’m going to read a text blurb of 100 or so characters. It’s an extra step to see the summary and then the actual message itself.

I kinda look forward to quantum computing ruining bitcoin

You don’t even need “Hard” proof. The mere fact that ChatGPT “knows” about certain things indicate that it ingested certain copyrighted works. There are countless examples. Can it quote a book you like? Does it know the plot details? There is no other way for it to get certain information about such things.