I'm in Fb jail right now, presumably for my political views, but they haven't actually told me what comment was problematic.
For it's many faults, at least slashdot the platform isn't known for opposing free speech like that
"It's also pretty wild the button specifically uses the term "AI slop" and not, say, "It seems this was generated with AI."
It makes sense. They don't care if the content is AI generated, this is not a moral stance because linkedin doesn't do those. This is people complaining about slop and LinkedIn pretending to care
Actually, it's exactly the same issue. Just using a different program.
It's not the same issue.
The pdf redaction folks drew black bars over extant text and hid it that way.
The excel chap clicked on "hide this tab".
There is no evidence that anyone was trying to redact anything when they hid the tab, they may have just been trying not to confuse the recipient. The person who hid the sheet is not the person who shared the document. Any similarity which did exist would be irrelevant because format shifting to a PDF would still solve this problem.
The example might have been chosen because synthsizing cocaine from raw materials is hard, so revealing a process that begins with "obtain illegal drugs" is unlikely to do harm.
In many cases, coca leaf is not illegal. You can buy coca tea in Peru. People frequently bring it back into this country because it just looks like tea. It's a reasonably mild stimulant, similar in effect to smoking a cigar. I understand that you need quite a bit to make any significant amount of cocaine, but I've never tried so I wouldn't really know.
If a library handed out an actual recipe with very clear instructions on making cocaine that also forgets to note how dangerous step four is, then yea, the library is liable.
If that were true then everyone who ever provided anyone a copy of the anarchist's cookbook would be in trouble.
I prefer good movies where off the chart level of suspension of disbelief aren't required.
That's reasonable, but what does it have to do with The Matrix, a film whose main premise was changed from something that makes sense to something that doesn't in order to be accessible to idiots?
Given his history, I don't think so
That's what I was talking about in another thread in this discussion when I said PDFs have their own issues but they wouldn't apply here. That's a problem when redacting PDFs, WHICH NO ONE SHOULD EVER DO. They should either go back to the source document, redact that, and create a new PDF; Or they should create an image from the PDF, redact that, and then they can publish that as a new PDF.
Azure did better than expected, that's it.
Give them a few more months of business as usual and there will be a correction
What LLMs do can not reasonably be called learning, or even frankly training, though the latter has unfortunately stuck.
On the other hand it's also not storing the original data (although the training corpus is that) but rather data about the data.
However, the standard for a derivative work is that it contains substantial recognizable elements, not that it's a 1:1 copy, so that distinction may be irrelevant, or at least not mean what you think it means.
Yeah but what are the odds that the training corpuses don't have tons of closed source code that just nobody has noticed is in there? While browsing the Web I've accidentally tripped over sources for SunOS and AmigaOS for example.
"I'd advise you you to shut the fuck up and work on a project that's now possible where before you needed a whole team."
Why, so they can replace me with someone cheaper next week? Or do you mean I should create some project in hope of a buyout when the organization that could buy it from me can just prompt their own version without me?
"There's actually plenty of examples on YouTube of Tesla's FSD avoiding collisions"
And there's actual court cases about Tesla's FSD mistaking the side of a trailer for the sky and driving under it, or going full speed towards a barrier and then disabling itself a fraction of a second before the collision so they can claim FSD didn't cause the accident because it wasn't in control at the time. Well guess what, neither was anyone else, and Tesla set them up for that.
It's as much of a newscast as anything on Fox aside from Fox Business
there must at least be an intent to cause physical harm
Every day, you prove you know nothing.
Why do you do it? For the love of losing the game?
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken
