lovich

It's also sadly hypocritical to see all this rhetoric here on this thread decrying SOTAs for using a variety of content for their inputs as somehow sTeaLINg sTufF! ...

... but Chinese SOTA foundries directly using distillation as fair game.

As someone who says it’s fair game, it’s less that I’m being hypocritical and more that I don’t care that one thief had their shit stolen by a second thief. I also wouldn’t care if someone distills the Chinese models. It’s just thieves all around and if they want legal protection or moral outrage from the common man then my view is that they should stop stealing first.

How does this work? I don’t have a setup to evaluate it atm.

Do the Chinese models have anything to say about Tiananmen Square? Or if they can act as a surrogate girlfriend/boyfriend?

Both countries are engaging in different flavors of censoring.

When AI doesn’t hallucinate as a fundamental aspect of the technology, that might be a viable option.

As it is, throwing a statistical word guessing machine at legal issues is a nightmare. Look at the lawyers already sanctioned for using AI that cited fake cases[1]

[1] https://natlawreview.com/article/lawyers-sanctioned-citing-a...

When I say that most of our state LEO's have strict adherence to the code of ethics, I mean that. When I say those in the grey area still consider themselves to have strict adherence, I also mean that.

When Terrance Howard says 1x1 = 2, he also means that and it’s as equally coherent.

They cannot strictly adhere to a code of ethics and simultaneously violate it when it comes to people they don’t care about. The “strict” part would require them to always adhere to said ethics.

PBA = Police Benevolent Association

How can you assume the LEOs with variable ethics are in the 80% and not the 20%?

Is that a real question? Having strict ethics is a higher bar than variable ethics. How can you assume that more LEO’s are strictly ethical than varying their ethics when you literally brought up

Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.

You literally said “…strictly ethical about varies…” you are being inconsistent with terminology if you are trying to claim strict ethics can vary

If you need

Strict[1] Variable[2]

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strict

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/variable

Is that locale in the United States as I assumed based on the conversation being around flock cameras?

If it is, and you are assuming 80% strict ethics then I have a PBA card from my grandfather to pull out to show you how incorrect that is on a statutory basis.

Also your second paragraph

Interestingly the things that LEOs are strictly ethical about varies by interaction and preconceptions - straight bat with fourth generation farmers, entirely willing to bend the law in bad ways when dealing with indigenous people etc. is not uncommon.

How can you assume they have strict ethics but also understand that they change their ethical stance depending on who they are dealing with. That’s not strict ethics by any definition.

i always hoped the "buddy" would be the lever that goes "no, that's crossing the line between friendship and ethics, please rethink your request"

What percent of law enforcement agents do you think would meet that bar?

I get the skepticism, I really do, but my hope is that your own AI(s) confirm exactly what I'm claiming within these comments

Given that you stated your readme is for bots, given that you expect our own AI to interpret it based on your evidence, how do I, as a human, go about evaluating this project without just writing it off as slop from the linked evidence?

What is the starting off point for a human, not an AI agent, to evaluate this?

And to be clear if the answer is to just download arbitrary code onto my machine and run it, that’s not good enough given the increase in attacks from AI projects and fake recruiters telling you to just run it bro. I’ve already had to pass on multiple interviews despite being unemployed because the human/ai on the other side demanded root access or for me to run arbitrary code onto my machine as part of their process.

If the only user is the author, then I don’t see a meaningful distinction between shipped and not shipped. It’s like a blacksmith who said they invented a new tool with great value but they built it themselves and no one else is willing to use it because it’s so customized to their workflow.

Edit: I’ll add a caveat that I’d agree it was shipped if it’s making the author money even if they are the only user, but otherwise it all smells like dotcom era Pets.com level of selling a dollar for 99 cents and claiming it’s the future.

If you don’t have public transportation that I feel safe having a 10-year-old ride on unaccompanied by an adult then you do not have public transportation. You have a very expensive drug addict shelter on wheels/rails.

What an escalation. If I don’t feel safe having a 10 year old drive a car is that just a drug addict shelter on wheels?

I don’t know if you intended it, but that was a good pun

I really enjoyed asking questions where I linked a similar answered question, went through the details that caused my problem to be mechanically different or rendered the other answer as not possible, and then having a moderator close it as a duplicate and link the answer half my post had been dedicated to explaining the difference.

So your only problem is that the laws are new and regulating American corporate actions, not the laws itself?

What is your cutoff timeline for where it’s an established law vs a new regulation?

I think it's fine that I used the terms interchangeably but you can disagree if you want. Pick the term you prefer instead.

This is what you said most recently

If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.

This is what you said originally that makes a distinction between law and regulation.

I truly cannot understand what you mean if you cannot define these as separate definitions but treat them like they are separate definitions.

Please help me square your world view.

The EU creates new laws…

If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.

Can you define the word “law” and the word “regulation” for me. You are using them interchangeably while arguing that they should be treated different so I can’t understand your argument beyond a strawmaned version of “I don’t like their laws so it’s not ok”.

I rather engage with the steel man version of your belief so please give me one.

The EU is the government literally making the laws. It’s as arbitrary as any government making laws. US law does not apply outside of US jurisdictions unless we are willing to use our military power to take over their sovereignty.

Do you think when the US applies its laws to foreign companies operating in their borders that it’s just made up and arbitrarily enforced?(ignoring the current admin, I would agree they are doing that by ignoring our own laws)

They used the word “entitled” if the article is to be believed. How is this sensational? This is on par with the current admin taking 10% of Intel in exchange for giving them funds that were already awarded to Intel and were required to be given.

Edit: to be clear, the current admin is treating American companies like their property, demanding that foreign countries invest in our businesses because they made “excess profits” is only a single indirection to a windfall tax.

Also lol at the idea that these guys believe in the idea of “excess profits”. I’d put money down that they would never accept that framing for themselves.

No, it’s because they keep breaking the law in the jurisdiction they are operating in.

How does respect for a person make them untrickable.

And don’t believe me then, read the twitter files yourself. It was the Biden admin going, “these guys are breaking your TOS, please do something about it” and then Twitter _sometimes_ removing the content if they agreed it was breaking their TOS. There were no orders beings given by the government that Twitter was following.

And then as soon as musk got in he started censoring shit he didn’t like people using the word “cis” because he hates trans people ever since one of his sons transitioned to a daughter.

You really should get your spending under control. Unfortunately unless you become one of the real people class through a large lottery, it sounds like you owe the rest of your life to AWS until you can pay off your debts for being so careless.

Is getting the prices to fall at all not a massive success when they are rising everywhere else? Wouldn’t even just arresting the price increases at 0 while other countries/regions deal with rapidly increasing prices be a win?

Do you think if you built a million houses for every person that the price would go down?

I’m using hyperbole here specifically because I’ve met nimbys who confidently state that the price would not go down in that situation.

Assuming your answer would be yes, then part of the yimby/abundance crowds argument is that this needs to be done everywhere or at least at a state level. Yea if only a single city does it they may never be able to out produce their demand, but that’s more of a prisoners dilemma issue between cities than a problem with building more housing leading to lower prices.

It was more publicly known because Musk made a big deal about the “Twitter files” which were a big nothing burger hyped up by musk and a bunch of journalists like Matt Taibi who were being led around by their nose by Musk. I remember watching an interview with two of the journalists in question and they were adamant that they had seen everything because they sat down with Musk and one of his engineers and the engineer made custom sql queries for whatever they asked and then gave them the results of the query. They would not accept that the engineer could have modified the query or the database could have been modified before they even started the interview. They just accepted Musks narrative completely.

I’ll grant that you may be on good faith but if you have a strong enough opinion on the level of censorship under the previous regime to give Musks behavior a pass, but don’t know anything about his current massive amounts of censoring and narrative shaping, then you are speaking confidently from a point of ignorance and that will garner as many downvotes as being in bad faith.

No man, I’d you had just said

I was willing to give him a pass…

That could be logically consistent given how he is more censorious than the previous management, but you said

I was willing to give him a pass (still am)…

That means you are giving him a pass on having more censorious behavior than what the group you disliked did. That just comes off like you’re biased and trying to hide it.

I don’t think you’re getting downvotes despite commenting in good faith, but because you aren’t commenting in good faith, and I say this as someone who hasn’t downvoted you.

I was willing to give him a pass (still am) in a vacuum regarding the Twitter thing given the mass censorship of the old regime (sorry - no, it wasn't acceptable, in any way shape or form)…

Why give him the benefit of the doubt when he censors worse than the previous management? Just look at all the grok lobotomies he gave it because he didn’t like how liberal coded the answers it was giving.

Can a business not just reach a steady state after maximizing its market?

It’s a close relative of the “I haven’t heard of that defense” by politicians who have definitely heard about said event in question.

If you can be compelled to produce your papers or get arrested by ICE then everyone will have to have their papers on them. ICE and leaders in this admin are also stating that they are aiming for millions of deportations.

Eh, we kinda can’t crow about that with ICE now, especially since it’s not just at known checkpoints where they are demanding papers.

Free speech is also on the outs since we’re having people getting jailed for not carrying the flame appropriately with regards to the late Mr Kirk.

Oh, and people getting prosecuted for 8647 as the powers at be decided to interpret that as a death threat instead of call to impeach.