No. Just... Hell no.
I hate this kind of "intuitive UI" shit. It constantly activates when you are trying to use the device and gets it the way of normal operation.
I don't want to do the "special new thing"... get off my screen!
[shakes fist at clouds]
That which is measured is improved.
You want more token usage? You got it!
Two. A security guard to watch the door, and a dog to bite him when he falls asleep.
Security is not the goal. Control is the goal.
A lot of the automated "site-builder" tools include these trackers by default. Some of the trackers (like the Google one) are useful for site-operators to track metrics (# of individual visitors vs repeat visitors, referring source, etc.)
If you build your own site from scratch, and know how to code, you probably would not include them in anything sensitive like this. But if you are just a guy who's boss said "Make it so" and searched for "how to build a website", well... here we are.
One of the goals that the AI pushers proclaim is for every human to have their own dedicated AI Agent that sifts the raw newsfeed and crafts articles tailored to the individual's preferences. Individually tailored spin. Everything matched to our pre-existing biases. Comfort and outrage tailored to our individual expectations. 100% engagement.
Classical Education is still a thing: Logic, rhetoric, grammar, debate, mathematics, reading, memorization, public speaking. Not available via the public school system, because the ratio of students to teachers does not work out.
This problem is not from vibe-coding. It is from a lack of design.
Real developers spend more time designing their programs than they spend coding them. For a reason.
(... and forget the EPSTEIN Files)
Shouldn't this datacenter be utilized by xAI (which is part of SpaceX now)? Why would they be leasing the capacity to a competitor instead of using it for their own internal AI corp?
Also is this datacenter built with the NVidia processors that were originally purchased by Tesla (for their AI project: Self Driving), before Musk decided to redirect them to his competing AI company xAI that he started because Tesla wouldn't guarantee him the controlling ownership stake he demanded "or else he would build AI elsewhere" ?
Nothing shady here...
I was gender dysphoric for about 15 years when I was young. I came to understand that I was wrong about how I felt about myself and, over time, my dysphoria faded and vanished. I didn't even know what gender dysphoria or transgendered even meant, I was certainly a victim of no "fad" or "social contagion". Instead, I was a victim of severe internalized homophobia.
You cannot respect people if you are unwilling to understand people's experiences and perspectives. You do not.
Your experience actually highlights one of the dangers of popularization of transgenderism. If transitioning had been readily available when you were young, you might have made permanent changes to yourself (chemically, surgically) without ever understanding what you were really feeling.
I support people's right to transition if that is what is right for them. But I do not condone such treatments for pre-pubescents or those who have not been through psychological counseling to ensure they know what they are choosing and why -not just as a reaction to puberty/insecurity that we all go thru to one degree or another.
My first thought was : Who's data center is it?
The homeowner? They don't need that kind of capacity.
The builder/contractor/whoever? Giving someone an easement to come onto my property at any time to access and maintain their equipment is not something that I want. It is bad enough that I have to put up with existing utility easements on my property -I am not building/buying a new home with extra easement requirements for a private company to send people over whenever they want to access their datacenter.
This is true. The cases so far have settled. None have gone thru the appeals process to actually generate binding precedent from a high court -they have all been rulings from a trial court judge.
BUT in each case, the judge has ruled as a matter of law that training is inherently transformative and thus not infringing. This is precedent setting, but not binding. Another judge could decide differently -but in doing so would create a matter for appeal.
Where the other cases have diverged is on the other issues. I bring up the Anthropic case because it specifically addressed the issue of acquisition of the data used in the training sets and the impact of that in a trained AI system, which is relevant to this case. The first Meta case (Kadrey vs Meta) also found that training was fair use, but brushed aside the issue of data acquisition; although it delved deeper into the other fair-use qualifiers (amount used, market impact, etc.) eventually finding in favor of Meta.
It could go either way (betting against someone with unlimited funds is not a good bet), but the precedent is against Meta here.
I was thinking Bartz vs. Anthropic, but there are other rulings.
I think someone summarized them further down, but I recommend reading them for yourself.
Training is not the same as pirating.
Training using material legally acquired is legal.
Training using illegally acquired material is illegal.
Not a contradiction.
Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing.
