just another dev

I figured zionism had to do with an ideology, not a profession. Generalisations like these are not helping.

Yup, that’s it.

I just told you I I’m not sure of the definition, so asking me what I think it means is pointless. Though I’m pretty sure it’s not a group you can join like ISIS, right?

I’m still not sure what it means, judging by the comments here it (murderer / terrorist etc) it does seem to be used as a slur. So yeah, using the definition instead would be useful.

I hope they managed to grab some content creators.

Yeah, I don’t think they would have been fired if they had just held a vigil without shitting all over their employers brands.

It’s easy to nitpick all the details in the video, but keep in mind that 2 years ago generative AI videos consisted mostly of shape shifting mosaics that vaguely resembled the things they were supposed to be. And now we’re down to “in this frame the 10x10 pixel airplane has a third wing”.

That doesn’t excuse the use of copyrighted material to get to this point, mind you. But to claim that this tech is going nowhere is just a contextless circlejerk.

Saw a great video about this (project is still ongoing).

It’s one thing to claim that the current machine learning approach won’t lead to AGI, which I can get behind. But this article claims AGI is impossible simply because there are not enough physical resources in the world? That’s a stretch.

It’s “funny”, because without that injection from Google, Mozilla would surely die. And the only reason Google hasn’t stopped doing that is because then Chrome (Blink) would be more likely to be treated as a monopoly.

Yay, mob justice!

deleted by creator

That’s a a bit too absolute way to look at it.

From their point of view the goal isn’t to abolish human involvement, but to minimise the cost. So if they can do the job at the same quality with a quarter of the personnel through AI assistance for less cost, obviously they’re gonna do that.

At the same time, just because humans having crappy jobs is the current way we solve the problem of people getting money, doesn’t mean we should keep on doing that. Basic income would be a much nicer solution for that, for example. Try to think a bit less conservatively.

I’m not sure how long ago that was, but LLM context sizes have grown exponentially in the past year, from 4k tokens to over a hundred k. That doesn’t necessarily affect the quality of the output, although you can’t expect it to summarize what it can’t hold on memory.

troed:

It’s problematic when people conflate their gut feelings for facts.

Also troed:
I understand activitypub better than creator of Lemmy

Well, that convinced me. Thanks for your insight on the matter, I now know how to value the rest of your comments.

And in one of those cases they are violating a very clear “this is not okay” signal, and in the other they are not.

What I think or what they “may” do is irrelevant regarding public data. What matters is sending a clear signal what you are and are not okay with.

Whether you actively participate in helping them get your data or not might not effectively matter in them acquiring it, but it may heavily impact the fine they get for it afterwards. You might be okay with them getting your data for free, but I’m not, sweet summer child.

They can still train ML models (create profit) from the data they get from you without consent.

I thought it was push after subscription.