fionwe1987

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/08/ai-tools-chatgpt-copyrighted-material-openai#:~:text=The developer OpenAI has said,used to train their products No shit, Sherlock. So to meet the needs of today's citizens, and generate the large valuation and profit that you do, you need the copyrighted output of artists, journalists, scientists and laywers. Doesn't that prove that the value you generate depends on their output, and thus they should share a substantial portion of the profit you make?

I'm not excusing terror at all. My position is, no matter what the other side did, you do not descend into their level and dish out group punishment, civilian harm, or ethnic cleansing. I just don't throw that judgement selectively, and hold both Israel and Hamas accountable to the same standard. Hamas fails. But so does Israel. The "logical conclusion" here is violation of internation humanitarian law, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, rape and murder, dude. WTF? What's the difference? I don't see one in your framework.

So nothing happened for 50 years, and Hamas suddenly started this war? What you're conveniently ignoring is that the "this is war, what can we do" narrative is flexibly used by bad actors on either side, in this war and others. And if your best defense is "they started it" you deserve the same treatment a kid making that pathetic excuse gets.

Ok, and can Hamas or a Palestinian citizen say this? And if so, would you agree with them? Put another way, your framework justifies all kinds of future atrocities and civilian murders in Israel by Hamas or some other Palestinian organization. So when/if those are committed, are you committing to offering this same defense then?

Yes, that's all you've said. Say something about what the Prime Minister, Finance Minister and Intelligence Minister have said, why don't you? Why the continual focus on the mayor, who no one but you has mentioned for the past 4-5 pages of this thread? And what of my original question? You've repeatedly derailed the central question of why its ok for Israel to commit massive violence in the name of "there's nothing else to be done". Why does Israel have the right to that excuse, but not Hamas? I never posted about any blasted mayor, dude. I don't even remember anyone else posting it, only you harping on it while chickening out of addressing the calls for ethnic cleansing coming out of the highest reaches of the Israeli government. Screw the mayor, whoever they may be. Answer the actual question at hand. The attempted distraction is ludicrous, and we're not so moronic as to fall for it. Yesterday's problems can cause today's no? But they are not gone, and they're advocating ethnic cleansing, and executing a war that is causing massive loss of civilian life. Why should the civilians of Gaza pay so much more than the folks at the top of the Israeli government, when those folks had a much more instrumental hand in creating today's state of affairs? How is "this is all there is" as the way to end Hamas an acceptable excuse from the very fuckwads who propped Hamas up for so long? I eagerly await a tirade on some unknown mayor as you dance around these questions again.

Huh? I am not. I don't think it makes any difference to my question though. And this is utterly rich coming from someone repeatedly refusing to acknowledge that Ministers in a government are not mayors of small towns, and continuing to ignore their calls for ethnic cleansing. They've been cited. Repeatedly. The only one citing the meaningless folks is you. As a transparent and disgusting attempt at distracting from calls for ethnic cleansing high in the Israeli government. By not giving them aid and allowing them to get funded for years when it suited me?

No one has cited that mayor you keep harping about for the last few pages, except you yourself. There are quotes from the Finance Minister, the Intelligence Minister and the Prime Minister, and yet here you are blustering about the obscure mayor. Why? Address the elephant in the room, instead of the mouse several blocks away.

I really don't understand the folks who make the "this is the only way" argument about the staggering civilian losses, and violations of international law. Are we really saying that "this is the only way" is an acceptable reason to violate legal and moral proscriptions? If so, plenty of terrorists can make similar claims. They often don't have the firepower and military might to properly declare war and choose inhumane actions as their "only option". Why is it ok for a state to do this, if it is not ok for the terrorists to?

Given the alternative is a legit insurrectionist, I think there's hundreds of millions of Americans more qualified to be president.

Image generation and copyright violations Lotsa ways to violate copyright using image generation models. And these companies don't seem to care.

You're right. I read an article which implied otherwise, and based my statement on that. Yeah that can work, though as noted, the amendment doesn't specify.

There was a bench trial in the Colorado case that looked at his actions, and the determination was made they amounted to insurrection. He was allowed his defense there. None of the 3 judges who dissented with the ruling had anything to say against the determination that he was an insurrectionist. If the Supreme Court wants to challenge that, they'll have to do so on the facts, and I don't think they'll want to go there. ETA: I have no fucking idea how this reply got here. Gonna leave it as is since folks replied anyway.

What due process argument? That he got a bench trial for the insurrection claim?

I'm honestly curious on what made up grounds they'll give Trump a pass. There seems very little legal grounds, honestly. The best case I've seen is about the law barring holding office, not running for it, but even that seems like a ludicrous distinction. If you're barred from holding office, you can't run for it, otherwise, foreign nationals barred from holding office could run for them all the time.

Not yet, though we're nipping at the heels of that. Already, there are successful attempts to use one LLM to fine-tune another. And LLMs can write code. We're not that far from LLMs tweaking themselves. It should be noted that LLMs aren't comprised of lines of code in the traditional sense. They're black boxes. I cannot take an LLM a code and read it, and make any kind of sense of what it will do. Certainly, no one can predict exactly how an LLM will behave. ChatGPT, for instance, got "lazy" briefly, a few months ago. This happened without any update to the code itself. People noticed it was giving briefer answers, that were less thorough. I noticed this myself. Some folks noticed this happens right around the start of daylight savings. And there was some data showing that if you fooled the LLM into thinking it was summer, it did better. Dunno if that held up. OpenAI doesn't reveal what tweaks they make to their model or how they resolve such issues. But the very fact that LLMs have behavior we have to infer and that we can probe, but not diagnose by reading some code, should tell you this is a different beast than any old computer program. LLMs do not have constrained behavior, in the sense that they are not bound to produce specific types of text, based on coded rules. And indeed, the same prompt can result in wildly different responses, at different times. What patterns an LLM sees in its training data is multidimensional to the point of incomprehensibility to us in any currently used language. Which is why controlling them is so damned difficult. And why not wholly unintelligent people lose their minds sometimes and see the ghosts of sentence in them. They do inexplicable things.

Yep. And to me, these are all signs of intelligence. Just that, though. I have no idea where they come from. No one does. But you can definitely get genuinely insightful and interesting questions pertaining to a subject. And also gobbledygook. Right, which is why none of this says this iteration of AI is human level intelligent. And definitely, any statements about sentence or consciousness are blather, at this point, too. But they're certainly intelligent, in a meaningful way, well past the kind of semantic rules based AI we used to have before this past decade.

They do not simultaneously learn and function. There's the training period, when they do indeed have access to tons of text data. Then there's refinement of the model with human feedback. By the time you interact with it and ask it questions, the model is locked, and no longer "learning". Nor does it have access to training data, just what it larned from the training data. They can certainly synthesize new information. That's kinda how they end up "hallucinating" or making mistakes. There are examples galore of these models confidently assigning revenue and profit figures to companies that are nowhere to be found, for instance. Or making up names and titles, or inventing historical events. And yes, they can ask questions that haven't been asked before (and were not in their training data), if what you prompt them to do is ask questions.

Again, this is absolutely not true. They do not pull data when they function. You can download smaller models to your computer yourself, disconnect the internet, give them access to no files in your computer except the files that the model comes with, and test this out yourself. They can be taught. They just won't do it 100% of the time, or do it accurately all the time. They'll especially miss new and sneaky ways people can be racist that they may not have encountered in their training. But isn't this true of humans, too? Again, I really don't think they're sentient or conscious. But the reasons you bring up are not why.