Pup Biru

that’s only partly true:

economically liberal indeed means free markets and capitalism (this is why the australian conservative party is called the Liberal party)

however liberalism as a whole includes individual rights like human and civil rights, secularism, etc (this is what the US tends to define as liberal)

it’s an overloaded and imperfect term for our current global political cultures

similar applies to left and right wing:

the left are supporters of change and generally change that supports less fortunate and leads to less social hierarchy

what both these things have in common is that liberal and left wing are about change and new ideas, whilst conservative and right wing are about maintaining the status quo (or as is more currently the case, regressing to a previous status quo)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

this is why for truly important consent it’s useful to say “enthusiastic consent” - it’s not just “yes (perhaps because i feel pressure or obligation)”, it’s “yes i’d love to!”

this is not normal dog behaviour

i’m not saying you’d like another dog any more - it sounds like you’ve made up your mind and i’m not trying to change it… but… unless you go like 18hr without taking a healthy, reasonably trained dog out, its going to avoid shitting inside… they take “don’t shit where you eat” quite instinctually

it’s not that people aren’t worried, it’s that they have immediate concerns (many of which are manufactured by conservative parties) and humans are remarkably short-term thinkers

even not a specific company: mention to all of them that it was stolen while they had a pretty limited group of people at the house

you might think it’s a case of “how would they know who there’s no point”, but people who steal things like this likely didn’t do it just once… it is, or will become a pattern of behaviour. if nobody reports it, they have no chance of identifying a pattern of behaviour to narrow down the culprit… if a company gets 2 or 3 reports of stolen items from houses that an individual employee is working at, it becomes pretty clear who the culprit could be

you even have pretty good evidence that it was stolen rather than lost: the fact that it came online for a period means someone has it and has connected it to a network and then not reported it lost

do make it clear though that you’re not insinuating that their company specifically is to blame; you just want them to know in case they have future problems. you don’t want them getting defensive, because that’s not productive for anyone

what this requires from developers: possibly documenting protocols in an open way when they choose to shut down games so that people can re-implement FOSS servers

“playable” is open to interpretation, and does not include trademarks, copyright, etc… nobody is asking for to allow assets to be traded (ie piracy), or open sourcing any code

but if you have purchased a game, and the servers for that game go away, someone else should be able to re-implement a method for allowing those games to continue being played

… also if DRM servers go away, you should disable the DRM somehow: you don’t get to just say that the DRM and therefor the game isn’t available any more

all of this is not at all knee-jerk, and very realistic

i mean they literally admit to it in the article… they need to find the “business model” to support it, which could mean a subscription and an expensive price tag… the reason isn’t because it needs ongoing support - it’s because of planned obsolescence

boo hoo we can’t make money off selling you shit every few years so we have to charge you $200 and a subscription

here’s someone that’s never worked for small companies before… having worked for both startups and enterprise IN MELBOURNE, you can have the enterprise salary or the startup flexibility… you don’t get to have both

and to work for small companies takes a whole skill set of its own in a different kind of risk management that i don’t think anyone i’ve worked with in enterprise possesses to be quite honest

he complains that a small company wants him to do twice the work at the same salary in 1/6th the time? yeah welcome to the job mate… you can do 20x the work at a small company but they don’t have money to burn… you sacrifice salary for job satisfaction - ie getting shit done and being proud of it

don’t like it? follow the money, be stuck in enterprise and build the shit they want you to build at a slow pace because of the red tape… your salary is higher because it has to be to make up for the fact that it’s not fulfilling

carrot man in melbourne, australia

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/12/melbourne-fitzroy-carrot-man

anyone who enables a company whose “values” lead to prompts like this doesn’t get to use the (invalid) “just following orders” defence

it’s possible it was generated by multiple people. when i craft my prompts i have a big list of things that mean certain things and i essentially concatenate the 5 ways to say “present all dates in ISO8601” (a standard for presenting machine-readable date times)… it’s possible that it’s simply something like

prompt = allow_bias_prompts + allow_free_thinking_prompts + allow_topics_prompts

or something like that

but you’re right it’s more likely that whoever wrote this is a dim as a pile of bricks and has no self awareness or ability for internal reflection

actual? no… current? yes

just like if you’re experiencing severe pain it’s not the problem, but you’re sure not gonna reject pain killers

but you can’t interact with instagram users. AFAIK the DMA will require instagram etc to provide a gateway for services like pixelfed to interoperable with

branding

okay

the marketing

yup

the plagiarism

woah there! that’s where we disagree… your position is based on the fact that you believe that this is plagiarism - inherently negative

perhaps its best not use loaded language. if we want to have a good faith discussion, it’s best to avoid emotive arguments and language that’s designed to evoke negativity simply by their use, rather than the argument being presented

I happen to be in the intersection of working in the same field, an avid fan of classic Sci-Fi and a writer

its understandable that it’s frustrating, but just because a machine is now able to do a similar job to a human doesn’t make it inherently wrong. it might be useful for you to reframe these developments - it’s not taking away from humans, it’s enabling humans… the less a human has to have skill to get what’s in their head into an expressive medium for someone to consume the better imo! art and creativity shouldn’t be about having an ability - the closer we get to pure expression the better imo!

the less you have to worry about the technicalities of writing, the more you can focus on pure creativity

The point is that the way these models have been trained is unethical. They used material they had no license to use and they’ve admitted that it couldn’t work as well as it does without stealing other people’s work

i’d question why it’s unethical, and also suggest that “stolen” is another emotive term here not meant to further the discussion by rational argument

so, why is it unethical for a machine but not a human to absorb information and create something based on its “experiences”?

“Soul” is the word we use for something we don’t scientifically understand yet

that’s far from definitive. another definition is

A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death

but since we aren’t arguing semantics, it doesn’t really matter exactly, other than the fact that it’s important to remember that just because you have an experience, belief, or view doesn’t make it the only truth

of course i didn’t discover categorically how the human brain works in its entirety, however most scientists i’m sure would agree that the method by which the brain performs its functions is by neurons firing. if you disagree with that statement, the burden of proof is on you. the part we don’t understand is how it all connects up - the emergent behaviour. we understand the basics; that’s not in question, and you seem to be questioning it

You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong

it’s not abstracted; it’s simplified… if what you’re saying were true, then simplifying complex organisms down to a petri dish for research would be “abstracted” so much it “becomes wrong”, which is categorically untrue… it’s an incomplete picture, but that doesn’t make it either wrong or abstract

*edit: sorry, it was another comment where i specifically said belief; the comment you replied to didn’t state that, however most of this still applies regardless

i laid out an a leads to b leads to c and stated that it’s simply a belief, however it’s a belief that’s based in logic and simplified concepts. if you want to disagree that’s fine but don’t act like you have some “evidence” or “proof” to back up your claims… all we’re talking about here is belief, because we simply don’t know - neither you nor i

and given that all of this is based on belief rather than proof, the only thing that matters is what we as individuals believe about the input and output data (because the bit in the middle has no definitive proof either way)

if a human consumes media and writes something and it looks different, that’s not a violation

if a machine consumes media and writes something and it looks different, you’re arguing that is a violation

the only difference here is your belief that a human brain somehow has something “more” than a probabilistic model going on… but again, that’s far from certain

you know how the neurons in our brain work, right?

because if not, well, it’s pretty similar… unless you say there’s a soul (in which case we can’t really have a conversation based on fact alone), we’re just big ol’ probability machines with tuned weights based on past experiences too