Me too nephew, me too

Sure, but there’s a large difference between questioning someone’s credibility and approving of them being sexually assaulted.

That is to say there’s a large moral difference between “she has a history of making up claims for attention, so I don’t believe her” and “she wishes harm on others, so I hope she gets sexually assaulted”.

I mean, just on the face of it, it is hypocritical to wish harm on someone because they wish harm on someone. Is wishing harm on someone wrong, or is it not?

Unfortunately, people seem to have no grasp of nuance and just react with the most outrageous takes. In my mind I just assume that these commenters are literally children, who’re simply copying bad behaviors and not actual functioning adults with the ability to self-reflect. But, that’s more for my own sanity.

Cut your eggs in half.

It’s financial advice for cooking at home.

No, they executed Nazis for operating death camps.

They did not execute for “just following orders”, aka Nuremberg Defense.

As it turns out, soldiers in all militaries follow orders every day without being executed.

Unless you’re going to explain how removing a unit patch and name tag, or transporting people to their country of origin is worthy of execution, I’m not sure that you have an argument.

Out of all the branches it doesn’t surprise me at all that the Air Force is the branch falling over itself to follow trump’s orders.

I’m not sure how you can imply that you’re familiar with how the military operates and then say something as ignorant as this.

All branches of the military “fall over themselves” to follow the orders of the President. That’s literally how the chain of command works.

Be upset at Trump for assigning shit missions, but it’s incredibly ignorant to attack any specific branch of the military for following lawful orders.

What do you picture the alternative to be? That some Airman should get himself court marshalled for refusing the order to remove his name and unit patch?

Could you explain how transporting people to their country of origin is an illegal order?

Or, maybe explain how you would handle the order as an enlisted soldier?

Unfortunately, simply reading the constitution without any knowledge of how to parse legal language or any background knowledge about major Supreme Court decisions will leave the average person more confused than informed.

So I don’t doubt that people read it, but there is a reason that law school isn’t simply reciting the constitution.

While the average voter may be ignorant… JD Vance absolutely knows better, he doesn’t get to hide behind claims of ignorance or confusion.

I know this one, from Middle School civics: The Judicial Branch!

Maybe they don’t teach that in law school (???)

Yes, even then.

You don’t have morals if they’re conditioned on the identity of the person they’re being applied to. That just makes you a different flavor of bigot.

Nobody deserves to be sexually assaulted, even the people you don’t like.

I love these threads, free karma:

Man bad.

<- Upvotes that way

Person A: Vague, sexist generalizations deserve rude answers.

Person B: WHAT ABOUT WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN?!

So, what about women’s treatment in Afghanistan disproves the claim “Vague, sexist generalizations deserve rude answers”?

Do vague, sexist generalizations not deserve rude answers because of the treatment of women in Afghanistan?

Maybe if women were treated better in Afghanistan then vague sexist answers would be more deserving of rude answers?.. Or would they be less deserving?

Are you a bot? Because nothing that you typed makes any sense, at all, in this context.

Or DEI people

Translated to right-wing populist

There are thousands of different diffusion models, not all of them are trained on copyright protected work.

In addition, substantially transformative works are allowed to use content that is otherwise copy protected under the fair use doctrine.

It’s hard to argue that a model, a file containing the trained weight matrices, is in any way substantially similar to any existing copyrighted work. TL;DR: There are no pictures of Mickey Mouse in a GGUF file.

Fair use has already been upheld in the courts concerning machine learning models trained using books.

For instance, under the precedent established in Authors Guild v. HathiTrust and upheld in Authors Guild v. Google, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that mass digitization of a large volume of in-copyright books in order to distill and reveal new information about the books was a fair use.

And, perhaps more pragmatically, the genie is already out of the bottle. The software and weights are already available and you can train and fine-tune your own models on consumer graphics cards. No court ruling or regulation will restrain every country on the globe and every country is rapidly researching and producing generative models.

The battle is already over, the ship has sailed.

I left a flat spot on my door so people can knock

Companies that are incompetently led will fail and companies that integrate new AI tools in a productive and useful manner will succeed.

Worrying about AI replacing coders is pointless. Anyone who writes code for a living understands the limitations that these models have. It isn’t going to replace humans for quite a long time.

Language models are hitting some hard limitations and were unlikely to see improvements continue at the same pace.

Transformers, Mixture of Experts and some training efficiency breakthroughs all happened around the same time which gave the impression of an AI explosion but the current models are essentially taking advantage of everything and we’re seeing pretty strong diminishing returns on larger training sets.

So language models, absent a new revolutionary breakthrough, are largely as good as they’re going to get for the foreseeable future.

They’re not replacing software engineers, at best they’re slightly more advanced syntax checkers/LSPs. They may help with junior developer level tasks like refactoring or debugging… but they’re not designing applications.

I know that it’s a meme to hate on generated images people need to understand just how much that ship has sailed.

Getting upset at generative AI is about as absurd as getting upset at CGI special effects or digital images. Both of these things were the subject of derision when they started being widely used. CGI was seen as a second rate knockoff of “real” special effects and digital images were seen as the tool of amateur photographers with their Photoshop tools acting as a crutch in place of real photography talent.

No amount of arguments film purist or nostalgia for the old days of puppets and models in movies was going to stop computer graphics and digital images capture and manipulation. Today those arguments seem so quaint and ignorant that most people are not even aware that there was even a controversy.

Digital images and computer graphics have nearly completely displaced film photography and physical model-based special effects.

Much like those technologies, generative AI isn’t going away and it’s only going to improve and become more ubiquitous.

This isn’t the hill to die on no matter how many upvotes you get.

Damn near

No, this is Patrick

As soon as they became a publicly tradable company they are obligated, by the Dodge v Ford ruling, to only maximize shareholder value. Being not evil isn’t an option.

That’s pretty close, the Permissive Action Link code was 00000000 for about 20 years.

This hamster is clearly in the know…

I think it’s because we here in the technical nerdy spaces know the value of a cooties shot…