Reflection by 아버지, listening to it is like having your mind defragged.

It can be useful to get worked up about things. Rather than dwell on something it can be cathartic to play into your emotions in the moment and let them release themselves, and practicing this allows you to do it internally with a straight face.

If you forgot something you were just thinking about a few minutes ago try thinking about what you were thinking about before that, it might activate the same train of thought. It’s like thinking about what you were doing before you set your keys down rather than where you put your keys.

What about the acidity though? Personally I love the taste of highly acidic beverages, but I’m worried if I drink them too often they could fuck up my teeth.

Somebody is going to want to fuck the lamp.

This is the second time in this thread that I’ve seen Nazi comparisons. Stop whitewashing Nazism by making absurd comparisons.

Have you read either of those works?

Veganism is already healthy, affordable, and tasty. Ever heard of a bean? And only doing the ethical thing when it is also the easiest thing to do is just extreme egotism. I’m not saying anyone has to be a saint, but they should at least put more consideration into their actions than “How does this affect me personally?”

I use my phone as a mobile computer, I almost never make calls with it. No way am I switching back.

I always use less detergent and add some vinegar.

50% (or more) of the content they will be releasing going forward will be IP tie-ins.

Sourdough with chunky peanut butter, ground mustard, and aioli.

Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.

It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.

I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.

I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.

Those analogies don’t make any sense.

Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?

While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.

It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.

LLMs don’t “know” anything. The true things they say are just as much bullshit as the falsehoods.

Who’s labor?

Minority Don’t Report

Once I started using Lemmy I never touched Reddit again. So I guess Lemmy.

YES

At least if we go off the Lemmy definition. I don’t self identify.