FaceDeer

@FaceDeer@fedia.io

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.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

FaceDeer,

Except that's probably not what they're for, I saw a video recently (I think it was this one) that went into detail about the reasons why it doesn't make much sense for these to be a knitting tool.

FaceDeer,

I know this is a popular thing to be angry about, but this time there was an actual fine. The consequences are being ratcheted up. The judge is just taking as much care as possible to make sure that all the "t"s are crossed and "i"s dotted along the way, otherwise he risks the whole trial being thrown out in the end. Look at some of the other high-profile "this rich guy's guilty as sin but got off anyway" cases, they often boil down to some screw-up that doesn't disprove the overall case but still invalidates the trial. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby pop to mind.

FaceDeer,

And even though it seems like a tiny slap on Trump's tiny wrist, it's still an escalation. So next time Trump flagrantly violates gag orders the judge can escalate more. If there's an appeal it'll be important to be able to show the judge didn't jump straight to the harshest penalties.

FaceDeer,

Yes, but as I explained, the judge is proceeding by steps up the ladder of consequences. The next time Trump violates a gag order he can now say "I have demonstrated that fines are insufficient, and so I'm moving on to jail time."

FaceDeer,

It's tongue in cheek, but I rather like this one.

FaceDeer,

It's harder than on Reddit, though, because the population as a whole is so much smaller. There aren't alternative communities for most topics- there aren't communities at all for most topics- and you keep seeing the same small group of prolific posters so the views aren't as diverse. If you happen to align with that group's views, great, but I find it a lot easier to end up as the lone unpopular view than on Reddit.

I'm hoping this will continue to improve over time as the Fediverse grows and diversifies more.

FaceDeer,

I haven't been paying close attention but it seems to be doing well. I originally joined the Fediverse on kbin.social because I liked the idea of supporting an alternative to a Lemmy monoculture, especially given what I'd seen of Lemmy's devs' views, but over time it became apparent that the lone developer of kbin wasn't intending to take advantage of outside assistance and that it wasn't going to work out as a single-person project in the long run. So I'm glad mBin forked, it seems to have picked up the necessary momentum. The mBin instance I'm on has had the occasional downtime or bug but nowhere near the kind of trouble kBin routinely had.

FaceDeer,

There's already Conservapedia.

FaceDeer,

Very much so. Last I heard the userbase was composed of roughly half truly sincere ultra-conservative nut and half parody accounts attempting to portray ultra-conservative views too extreme and nutty for the sincere ultra-conservatives, and nobody could tell who was what.

ChatGPT provides false information about people, and OpenAI can’t correct it (noyb.eu)

It’s clear that companies are currently unable to make chatbots like ChatGPT comply with EU law, when processing data about individuals. If a system cannot produce accurate and transparent results, it cannot be used to generate data about individuals. The technology has to follow the legal requirements, not the other way...

FaceDeer,

The technology has to follow the legal requirements, not the other way around.

Given the possibility that this is a general problem of AI that simply cannot be corrected, the law could end up meaning that LLMs are outright forbidden in the EU. If that's true then the legal requirements will have to be changed, there's no way the EU would actually ban them. It'd be like opting out of the internal combustion engine due to some detail of an old law that they happened to violate.

FaceDeer,

You're reading one right now?

FaceDeer,

It's not the world that would be opting out of the internal combustion engine in this analogy, it would be Europe. There rest of the world would go on industrializing while Europe remains in the 19th century. It would be an insane act of self-destruction.

FaceDeer,

The economic effects would still be enormous. You can amend my analogy to "banning internal combustion engines when their services are being sold to customers", leaving them free for individuals to use to carry themselves around, and it'd still have a massive impact.

Europe's not going to kneecap themselves over this.

FaceDeer,

It will happen in just under six years.

FaceDeer,

That list is out of date, several of those items have already been accomplished.

FaceDeer,

Re-light Starship engines, achieve stable orbit (they deliberately cut the engines just a few meters per second shy of it on IFT-3, there's no reason not to count it), and transfer propellant (one of IFT-3's test routines during its almost-orbit was transferring propellant between internal tanks).

FaceDeer,

There was a propellant transfer done during IFT-3's flight between internal tanks, too.

The list's not as big as it seems, several items are very closely related (there's three separate items for "design, build, and test a life support system" for example).

FaceDeer,

They relit the engines on the booster, which are the same engines. They've been relighting engines for a while now.

FaceDeer,

They shut down and relit many more engines during stage separation and the subsequent boostback burn. Here's where they relight the middle ring of Raptors.

I suppose if you want to add "in microgravity" to that list item, then yeah, they haven't done that part yet. The list item just said "Re-light Starship engines", which they have indeed done many times in many circumstances. Just not that particular one yet.

FaceDeer,

It's superstitious clutter. Most websites require you to license the content you post to them without those restrictions, and AI training may not even involve copyright in the first place, meaning the license is moot. It just makes you look silly.

FaceDeer,

"Lemmy" isn't a website. I'm not even viewing this from a Lemmy instance, I'm on an mbin server. Do you understand how the Fediverse works? Your posts are being copied and transmitted to everyone regardless of what restrictions you claim you're putting on them, if you don't want them used that way then don't post in the first place.

And if you're finding this argument about your spam to be entertaining there's a word for that. I likely shouldn't be feeding that but this thread is already thoroughly derailed.

FaceDeer,

The content can be freely redistributed provided it is fine in a noncommercial way and with attribution (which is the case, right? We see the comment author).

There's nothing preventing a Fediverse instance from showing ads, which would commercialize the comments on it.

Furthermore, they're posting from Lemmy.world. Lemmy.world's terms of service include this clause:

You waive Lemmy.World and its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all their respective staff, representatives, service providers, contractors, licensors, licensees, and successors from any claims resulting from any action taken by Lemmy.World, and any of the foregoing parties relating to any investigations by either us or by law enforcement authorities.

That goes even further than the usual boilerplate on sites like Reddit that say "you grant us license to do whatever we want with the stuff you post here."

And besides all that, copyleft licensing (and copyright in general) likely has no relevance to AI training regardless. Copyleft licensing only has power because it grants permission to make copies of something. You can actually reject a copyleft license, if you want, it just means that you can't make copies of the thing once you've rejected the license. But training an AI doesn't require making copies of anything, it only requires analyzing a copy that you already have. You don't need permission to analyze something that you can already legally read.

There are of course some interesting court cases currently wending their way through various legal systems, and all sorts of legislation pending in all sorts of different countries, but as things stand right now that CC link is just pointless spam that's being held up as a totem against witchcraft.

FaceDeer,

Again, I'm not even using a Lemmy instance. You're clearly trolling at this point.

FaceDeer,

Reminds me of the classic superstition in the pigeon psychological study.

FaceDeer,

Yeah. Lots of people parrot the phrase "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer," but then as soon as some specific guilty person goes free they go "no, wait, let me amend that..."

It does annoy me that the guilty men going free does tend to skew strongly towards rich guilty men, simply because they can afford to fight it out. But I'd rather everyone get the chance to fight it out rather than remove those opportunities. Maybe if everyone had the opportunity to fight for all their rights the police and prosecutors would start taking more care not to violate them.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • anitta
  • PowerRangers
  • Youngstown
  • ngwrru68w68
  • slotface
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • DreamBathrooms
  • vwfavf
  • everett
  • magazineikmin
  • Leos
  • InstantRegret
  • mdbf
  • ethstaker
  • Durango
  • cisconetworking
  • cubers
  • osvaldo12
  • tacticalgear
  • modclub
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • All magazines
    •