fionwe1987

I'm not claiming everyone here is an expert. And the discussion is certainly complex, as these threads prove. I'm asking you, though, if you think the point of this discussion is to serve as a history lesson for the completely uninitiated. That seems far from everyone's mind when they're having the conversation here, including, I'd argue, yours.

Fair enough, but that's the issue, here. There are AI folks who say "I can read the New York times, and then come up with text that uses my knowledge of the Times without violating copyright, so why not an AI?". Leaving aside that regurgitating NYT's text word for word wouldn't be covered under fair use even for individuals, the bigger question is, can an AI be allowed to "gain knowledge" the way humans do, at the cost of a subscription to the NYT, or should using NYT articles to train an AI require royalty sharing with the NYT? If SCOTUS holds corporations have free speech rights, it doesn't seem like a stretch to say their AI can read and use the knowledge they glean from the NYT without having to pay royalties.

Do you think that is happening, and that is the audience we need to pitch our posts to? I thought this is a conversation, where the participants all have their relative levels of understanding of the topic. I didn't realize this was also supposed to be a guide on the subject to the totally clueless.

A prescient essay. Sums up pages of debate in this thread. So long as Israel continues to do this, its claims to being a humane, democratic state will remain laughable.

And is "no good way to do it" an excuse you'll extend to the Palestinians, as well? Can they say that about October 7? Is there any limit to "no good way to do it", as an excuse? And this supposed lack of loudness explains you offering them this many excuses for their actions now? "Hamas bad", or rather "Hamas awful/atrocious" is not something anyone is contesting. So why exactly do you expect essays on the topic? Second, does Israel suck is in fact contested, and Israel's sucky actions continue, and continue to get worse, so why wouldn't that take more space in these threads? More critically, you've said "both suck", but apply the suckage of Hamas as an excuse to Israel doing what it is currently doing, as if it is this chain of blind retaliation, or nothin. But have exactly the opposite with respect to how Palestinians/Hamas should respond to Likud/Israeli right winger's sucky actions. They have even fewer options against these forces. I don't believe that justifies October 7, and clearly, neither do you, but why do you think destroying so much of Gaza, humiliating its citizens, starving and ethnically cleansing them... why is all this accepted by you under the guise of "no good way to do it"?

And how would you feel if, looking at the destruction and pain of October 7th, someone glibly brought this up as a thinly veiled excuse to imply the Israeli's deserved it? That is exactly what you're doing when, in response to conversation about the massive civilian loss of life, you say "Or they couldn't have attacked in the first place". So maybe cut out that BS? And you can make a similar case about Israel not caring about Palestinian civilian lives, ever, both based on their pre-Oct 7 actions in Gaza, as well as the continued impunity and occupation in the West Bank. Quit using the geopolitical hypocrisy of Hamas or Israel to justify civilian deaths. Or apply it equally on both sides. This idea of impunity for Israel, blended with "you deserve it coz Hamas" for Palestinians is beyond the pale.

Huh. You're right on the post-credits scene. And they even have Will say the same thing, but the entire spacewalk convinced me the opposite was happening.

And that this is a "problem" is why I find arguments against the settler-colonial lens being used to view the Israel-Palestine conflict utterly bizzare.

Can this then be extended to, "if Likud didn't bolster Hamas for so many years, everyone on both sides would be alive right now"?

On that scene

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/opinion/israel-icj-genocide-south-africa.html Barbaric.

I have no idea why this must be so. Theoretically, at least, there's plenty of ways for religion to evolve. You seem to think it must be caused only by how our brains work, but I see no reason to assume that. Ummm... We're hardwired to experience all the emotions we experience, and there's no reason for sociality to be the driver of awe, because awe can come from any interaction of the small and individual set against the vast and connected world. And awe is hardly a consistent emotion social animals feel around authority, so I'm sorry, that kind of evolutionary psych hypothesis just doesn't fly. Well this isn't a reasonable assumption. No creature is going to evolve without a biosphere of many other species, and even solitary or non-social species in our world interact with other creatures. And even if you imagine such a thing, this species will be interacting with the world, with nature, with the vast universe. Whatever they feel in response to these things won't be identical to human awe, but they'll feel something, and it'll be awe-adjacent. Arrival is a great concept and story, but it's a far greater reach to imagine a species unbound by time that way that evolves naturally than assuming any naturally evolved species that comes up with linguistic communication will have some form of religion.

They almost certainly will. And those beliefs will be in contradiction to all of ours, and they will almost certainly use the supposed "superiority" of their religion to justify their conquest.

It wasn't part of the plan, but it was part of the ineffable plan. Just watch Good Omens, and it'll all be clear (not!).

Hmm... Why so?

As an atheist, I always found polytheism better. At least the stories are more interesting, and the morality tends to be more realistic.

Was East Jerusalem covered by the ceasefire terms?

This is ludicrous. Since they actually did stop attacking during a ceasefire, "no matter what" either doesn't include "during ceasefires", or this guy is the equivalent of the mayor you kept harping about.

And who is shifting goal posts? The argument you've repeatedly been making that a ceasefire would have to be unilateral, and thus it isn't worth attempting ceasefires, is utter BS.

They're not wrong that such LLM's would be less impressive. But the reason for that is that a lot of the impressiveness of LLMs seems to be tied to the size of their training dataset, and the fact that, as the NYT case is showing, and the IEEE article I linked showed, some of this training data leaks into the responses, in a way that is not easily resolved. But that's all the more reason to share the profits, as far as I'm concerned. Or, build LLM architecture such that it is better able to extract intelligence from public domain works. But that's easier said than done, and its so much easier to violate copyright and make money now, instead!

No one? Didn't the agreed upon ceasefire just... end?

Also, if I'm not allowed to rob banks, I can only produce counterfeit notes, which do not meet the needs of today’s citizens.

There's a lot of that going around in this thread, too. Using the Holocaust to justify Nakbas and ethnic cleansing and apartheid. It's indecent and perverse.

Yes, but if corporations are people, I shudder to think what this SCOTUS will say about intelligences trained by corporations.

Well, this would also mean the President could order RoboCop to unscrew bolts in Boeing planes without being prosecuted, so it's kind of related! I'd kind of love it if they did a demo of this. Biden should send Seal Team 6 to go surround Orange Jesus and point their guns at him. If he believes his own argument, he shouldn't even protest, since Biden is doing exactly what his lawyer says he can do, except for the pulling the trigger part. The Republican judge in the 3 judge panel also didn't seem enamored of this argument, and I suspect neither will Kavanaugh. It is so laughably absurd only Alito and Thomas will go for it. Maybe Gorsuch.