Worse still it’s not even clear what is being discussed. It implied “violence” but that is a wide range from just pushing to serious shooting.

% can also be misleading when a scale is arbitrary. A temperature increase measured in Fahrenheit will be a rather different % when converted to Kelvin.

deleted by creator

I thought this commented would have gone down better. It’s a banger.

In UK you can’t buy high caffeine drinks unless you’re over 16, so you neef ID if you don’t look over 20 or such.

Headline should have been: porn sites have no spunk. Screw the government and just plug the whole country. Though we’ll no longer have easy access various VPNs will still allow us to reach around the block with IP protection (just like consuming BBC service without a license).

“hallucination refers to the generation of plausible-sounding but factually incorrect or nonsensical information”

Is an output an hallucination when the training data involved in that output included factually incorrect data? Suppose my input is “is the would flat” and then an LLM, allegedly, accurately generates a flat-eather’s writings saying it is.

Artificial neural networks are simple versions of the neurons arranged in a brain. It’s a useful solution when you know what the output should be but you don’t know what algorithm would produce it from a desired input. To claim “AI” is learning the same way as complex human brains seems a bit farfetched. If you want to say human brains are ultimately just an algorithm then fine, but look at the outputs between the two.

AI art may not look like duplication but it often looks like derived-work which could trigger copyright infringement (to my non-artist eyes). AI code on the other hand looks much closer to duplication to me and it doesn’t seem right they can use other’s code to produce code while ignoring the license because the algorithm had “learned like a human”. Many software licenses are there to protect users, rather than monopolize, and get totally ignored for profit.

“Innovative” these days seems to means new ways to fuck-over users, rather than the past where it meant products got better and/or cheaper.

KOS is “kill on sight”, a video game term.

If you’re using the minimum amount, in a transformative way that doesn’t compete with the original copyrighted source, then it’s still fair use even if it’s commercial. (This is not saying that’s what LLM are doing)

That’s right. I even corrected that typo before I posted, or so I had thought.

Just noticed KOSA starts with KOS. Was that international intentional, like DOGE?

We agree, I said “if they can’t”.

I assume most licenses out there are irrevocable? They’re certainly a feature of copyleft licenses.

If someone posts copyrighted material they were not allowed to share then 3rd party servers still need to deal with DMCA takedown requests and false reports, regardless of TOS. An explicit license might help but by how much? It may also push some users away.

There’s so many reasons trying to force companies to implement age verification is a bad idea, and “to protect the children” is a nonsense excuse. That said, it’s kinda scary if a government can’t regulate business behaviour when interacting with their citizens (who are inside the country).

If one limits their scope to the nutrients or taste of food on their plate then they wouldn’t consider the well-being of other conscious creatures. Only considering system requirements to complete an activity misses out the freedom of the user(s), apparently.

It is a given that humans suffer due to the unjust power that proprietary software gives devs over their user’s computing. Even the best dev does not the the willpower to always resist the temptation to use that power at the expense of the users. Many devs are oblivious they are doing anything wrong and many are malicious/anti-consumer.

There is also the impact it’s use and promotion has on others - money/feedback/promotion given to the non-free projects are boons not given to the freedom-respecting projects. I am better off when others start to move away from proprietary software.

I’m sure that’s correct. Richard Stallman would be a good example of that, sadly. I doubt anything as negative has been said in this thread, or site. Seems more like people feel attacked when free software advocates point out uncomfortable issues. Like how people get annoyed with vegans talking about animal cruelty (I eat meat, saying that to avoid theonejoke).

To continue the metaphor: a partner can have many alluring qualities (income, hobbies, looks) but what does that matter if the relationship is abusive? Leaving (and dating someone “worse”) can be more difficult that just staying in the relationship, but the priority should be clear.

If people choose not to use software that’s open source because of the way people talk on some thread… were they intellectually thinking about their own best interests? It’s like no longer enjoying a show because some fans did something cridge - anything popular enough will have weirdos (from someone’s perspective).

What’s it from?