![](https://fedia.io/media/0d/90/0d9097fcd085a5a00c935073e45acc5736f8f471cfdec99dfe7b6d12f3dd3710.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Training an AI on something doesn’t involve copying it.
Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and then some time on kbin.social.
Training an AI on something doesn’t involve copying it.
And under copyleft licensing, they’re allowed to do that. Both to GitHub repositories and Wikipedia.
Why would that matter? You can fork such projects too.
If you want to argue that Lemmy doesn’t represent users at large, or that the people complaining about AI are a loud minority, go for it.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing. Though specifically this community, not Lemmy as a whole (I’m not a Lemmy user myself for that matter).
You made an assertion about what end users want. I’m an end user and my desires are not the same as your desires.
But if the sentiment is that common, maybe there’s something to it.
Or maybe it’s just a common fallacy. Like argumentum ad populum.
FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange, how is that remotely similar to NVIDIA?
Can you remind me how those technologies are related, other than the mere accusation of them being “buzzwords”?
Cryptocurrency is actually doing fine, BTW. Just because you don’t find it useful doesn’t mean it’s not useful to other people.
I am an end user and I find it quite handy for a number of applications.
The reasoning “I don’t find it useful and therefore nobody finds it useful” is common in these sorts of threads.
How long does AI need to be used, and how much demand needs to be sustained, for it to stop being called a “buzzword”? I’m a little dubious that NVIDIA became literally the most highly-valued company on Earth off the back of a mere “buzzword.”
Why not both? A large project like this needs to fix bugs and also continue to refine its features for long term relevance.
deleted by creator
A car window is a lot easier to shatter than a fighter jet canopy.
Or, climb into the front seat and open the front door.
Of course, because music belongs to the Record Labels. How dare it be made without their consent (and a cut being paid).
It’s not your first option in an emergency. Normally you just open the door. Breaking the glass is several layers of things-not-working deep.
It doesn’t look hidden to me, I expect I’d probably use that by accident myself.
Does that mean that a country that imports 100% of the oil it burns should be counted as having no emissions?
I only took issue with your regressive philosophy
The “regressive philosophy” you’re accusing me of holding is the opposite of what I said. There’s your misunderstanding to be corrected.
I don’t like the publishers, I think copyright has gone bananas with its various extensions over the years, I want to see them fought and defeated in court. The problem here is who is doing the fighting.
Imagine a scenario where there’s a ravenous man-eating bear in the woods. There’s two people available to fight it; a grizzled woodsman who makes it his entire business to go out and fight bears, and the village librarian who’s carrying around a backpack full of irreplaceable books. For some reason the librarian is out there poking the bear with a stick, and when the bear didn’t initially respond he started whacking it over the nose. Now the bear is chewing on the librarian’s leg and the librarian is crying out “oh no, my backback full of books is in danger!”
Well duh. You shouldn’t have been carrying that backpack into harm’s way like that. Nobody is in the least bit surprised that the bear attacked the librarian under those circumstances. I don’t have to be on the bear’s side to understand how this situation was going to go down and call the librarian an idiot for willingly getting into it.
The woodsman (the EFF) should have been the ones to take this fight. They’re better at it, it’s their job, and if they fail they don’t risk that precious backpack in the process. The librarian should have kept his books safely ensconced until the fight was over and it was safe for him to bring them out. If he really wanted those books distributed in the meantime, there are some sites who are already out there running around under the bear’s nose taking that risk for their own reasons; let them continue taking those risks for now. The IA’s job is to protect the archive.
You get out ahead of the locomotive knowing that most of the directions you go aren’t going to pan out. The point is that the guy who happens to pick correctly will win big by getting out there first. Nothing wrong with making the attempt and getting it wrong, as long as you factored that risk in (as McDonalds’ seems to have done given that this hasn’t harmed them).