Trombone12

LLM's are definitely the sort of thing people in general mean when they say "AI".

The act of using "an AI" to generate a license restricting the use of AI can have many motivations, but an obvious one is the simple "use their own weapons against them" principle.

It's for fairness, the EU has to handicap itself after the US decided to ban abortion and persecute trans people.

There were plenty of top tier Covid vaccines created in Europe, and a Danish pharmaceutical is currently crushing the US weight loss market: your jingoism is deluding you.

Since value is only defined by what people are willing to pay for it, and lacking any extra common rules, these acts of copying simply signal not accepting the demanded price: so the value claimed by the owner was not the actual value, thus they have lost only their self-deception about the value.

You can just drop "intellectual" and there will be no fundamental change to the argument, it's only the name of the laws defining "property" that change.

Uh, surely "I know it is more complicated but I will not mention that" is the lazy stance?

> I ask because there were released US NIH emails discussing a base sequence not close to any in natural sequences

If you are seriously asking, you'll have to be much more specific about which exact sequence is being alleged as impossible; there have simply been too many unsound claims about something mysterious in the initial isolates for me to be able to guess what particular claim you want disproven.

If it's the furin site specifically that's supposedly unnatural, then that's simply false, and you can easily find debunkings of this if you just search for "furin site debunk". As an example, here's a recent paper about a very similar furin site (parts of it being identical to the canonical covid-19 site) found in a corona virus from wild bats captured in 2021: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1995820X2... this is simply put explicit observation of this "unnatural feature" found in nature.

You asking a Replika AI for evidence against natural spillover does not amount to making the basic science "an increasingly shaky claim".

Also, try to use less double negations in your writing "I don't necessarily think it's wrong that that comment shouldn't be allowed to pass without challenge." is an atrocious construction.

Why? Covid-19 was a natural spillover, not a "synthetic virus". If he does feel vindicated he's a straight up loony conspiracy theorist.

"Hey, any IP lawyers want to sue Microsoft for stealing our IP?"

The board do own Chat-GPT though

I guess that's because most "startups" aren't controlled by non-profits.

Because you care about accuracy?

> My lesson from this: outcomes causal inference is very dependent on assumptions and methodologies, of which the options are many.

This seems like a natural feature of any sensitive method, not sure why this is something to complain about. If you want your model to always give the answer you expected you don't actually have to bother collecting data in the first place, just write the analysis the way pundits do.

A program is not some discreet, one time, thing, it's an extended process involving many many decision points: It's pretty flippant to pretend that statistic reasoning developed for when you draw things out of a hat is equally valid when talking about the chances you will produce a 20 year long enterprise of illegal human experimentation.

Hey, at least Getty handed over some money as the basis for that claim, OpenAI et all are leaning on "our scraper brought it back" to maker their version of that exact claim.

> new center-right coalition

Holy fascist washing batman! There's no centre party in the Tidö government, it just has conservatives puppeteer by a far right party founded by neo-Nazis...

And how does that upend anything? That it fell out already in the car does not seem dramatically different from it falling out after shaking Kennedy a bit.

If it's GDPR you're referring to, I think these bits of Article 17 (right to be forgotten) are relevant:

""" Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:

...

(d) for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing; or

(e) for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.

"""

As the support schedule for python is known ahead of time, this scenario seems pretty well covered by "disclosure of how long the product will receive security updates": just choose the EOL for the relevant python version in the date-picker.

Drones aren't that new militarily speaking, and aren't particularly survivable against Russian EW systems: they're simply cheap enough that Ukraine can afford to replace the current rate of losses of about 10 000 UAVs per month (Meatgrinder: Russian Tactics in the Second Year of Its Invasion of Ukraine, p. iii)

> Like in computing all electricity just becomes waste heat

I mean, not all of the IT sector is ad-tech you know; for example, many would argue that the systems durably recording how much money you own provide a useful service.

From the second link:

> students approached this “Year in School” question in a number of different ways. For example, a junior might have written “junior”, or “2016” or “class of 2016” or “3” (to signify that they are in their third year). All of these responses are reasonable.

> A less reasonable response is “Harvard” [...] Nevertheless, the data file indicates that 20 students did so. Moreover, and adding to the peculiarity, those students’ responses are all within 35 rows (450 through 484) of each other in the posted dataset

In addition, of these 20 very suspicious rows, most were strongly confirming the hypothesis of the authors.

Likewise the first link shows that, in a spreadsheet containing outcomes sorted by treatment group, someone had manually moved rows from the span of rows containing one kind of treatment to a span containing outcomes from a different treatment. These provably manually reordered rows also contained most of the strong evidence for the predicted effect...

Indeed, if we don't care at all about "x is y" statements being true, they can be "applied" to reading.

To determine if an art student and DALL-E really are the same, despite their very obvious difference (one has arms and is part of a net of social relations while the other is intellectual property), will take some actual arguments which I presume you of course had planned to provide in a second comment from the start.

I find redactle and its clones to be better games than the context ones because the similarity measures are inherently without any sense, and so even if you guess the correct word it often feels like pure luck.

In redactle winning by pure luck still happens, but at least in hindsight you can tell where you went astray, in contexto the answer often turns out to be "because you aren't a high dimensional word embedding trained by Open AI".

I'd wait for Genzel to comment, some of us remember the disruption disappointment of G2 which they don't seem to comment on in the article: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/acb344

But that is certainly not what is being claimed here. What TFA says is that they think Leonardo correctly realised that falling things accelerate, as opposed to fall with a constant speed as (the ancient) Aristotelian physics prescribed.

To go all the way to the (Einsteinian) equivalence principle from that is huffing great man hopium in the extreme: Leonardo is certainly not as user of reference frames, and the equivalence principle simply does not exist without them. Another problem is that he didn't know of inertia, what with being of the Aristotelian school.

Yeah punycode is a bad "solution", it just makes most url look suspect.

The comment about the Canadian rules shows that the confusion problem should be handled on the registrar level rather than the url bar.

What the hell, how can you be so colonial you think it is normal to deny someone the right to their name just because it doesn't come from that one language you ever bothered to learn?