Yeah, the fact that out payment system is so centralised is definitely a bad thing. But GNU Taler, from what I understand, is just trying to work within that system. It didn’t create the system, and it doesn’t have the power to replace it.
Yeah, the fact that out payment system is so centralised is definitely a bad thing. But GNU Taler, from what I understand, is just trying to work within that system. It didn’t create the system, and it doesn’t have the power to replace it.
Who do you care so much about protecting the failed and unethical law of copyright? Are you going to tell me you don’t pirate media too?
You have no obligation to teach me, correct. But if you choose not to, you have no right to criticise me without backing up your claims. Pick one.
Oh, wow! You ‘work in ML projects’, do you?
Then maybe you could point out specific examples of me not knowing what I’m talking about, instead of general dismissiveness?
You are very skilled in the art of missing the point. LLMs can absolutely be used as chatbots, amongst other things. They are more advanced than their predecessors in this, and work in a different way. That does not stop them from being a form of artificial intelligence. Chatbots and AI are not mutually exclusive terms, the first is a subset of the second. And you may indeed be referring to AGI or ASI as AI, a misconception I addressed in my earlier comment.
Can’t you just use gnome-screenshot with the screencast feature? Unless this lets you record stuff that already happened, a sort of ‘capture last 30s’ sort of thing.
Whenever any advance is made in AI, AI critics redefine AI so its not achieved yet according to their definition. Deep Blue Chess was an AI, an artificial intelligence. If you mean human or beyond level general intelligence, you’re probably talking about AGI or ASI (general or super intelligence, respectively).
And the second comment about LLMs being parrots arises from a misunderstanding of how LLMs work. The early chatbots were actual parrots, saying prewritten sentences that they had either been preprogrammed with or got from their users. LLMs work differently, statistically predicting the next token (roughly equivalent to a word) based on all those that came before it, and parameters finetuned during training. Their temperature can be changed to give more or less predictable output, and as such, they have the potential for actually original output, unlike their parrot predecessors.
You really think when we actually have the power to automate all labour the 1% are still going to be able to hoard all the resources? Now, when people have to work to live, it dissuades them from protesting the system. But once all labour is actually automated, there would be nothing to prevent the 99% from rightfully rising up against the 1% trying to hoard all the resources (which the 1% generated without any effort) and forcing societal/structural change.
I want - and think will happen - 95% of jobs to be automated eventually. But even in the transition period, where some jobs are automated and some aren’t, universal basic income can be a tool to make it livable for all in the transition period.
Assigned Cop At Birth
I want to be made obsolete, so none of us have to have jobs and we can spend all our time doing what we like. It won’t happen without a massive social systemic change, but it should be the goal. Wanting others to have to suffer because you think you should get rewarded for working hard is very selfish and the fallacy of investment, that you feel you should continue a bad investment even if you know it’s harmful or it would be quicker to start over, because you feel you don’t want your earlier effort to go to waste.
To me they just say ‘I have stuff to hide from you, not from Google, Facebook, or the government.’
I agree with the first part of your comment, I don’t understand the second. Some sort of pedophilophobic rant?
Lookmovie2.to and don’t be blue?
I don’t ‘have’ Netflix either, but I can watch things from it…
You generated that with stable diffusion?
Klaas and doh-errs.
Just to counterbalance some of the disagreement replies you’ve got - I agree with you, it’s scary how many people are happy to be ageist, even when they’re so progressive on other forms of equality. If you can control people based on how long they’ve been alive, that’s very dangerous in several ways, both to the people who’s autonomy is being stolen, and to others who it sets a precedent for.