Taking a look at the recent modlog, as well as other comments around here, it looks like they’re trying to find the right balance for what’s okay and what has crossed the line.

There are an alarming number of comments that are actively encouraging murder and the amount of upvotes that even the worst of those comments receive is sickening.

I think, at this point, anything the health insurance companies do that actually looks good, will make us jump to that conclusion.

Doesn’t sound like much more than acknowledging the process and signing the form by the judge. Is that art?

Judging by the picture in the article, the judge wasn’t just a passive participant who was standing nearby and watching, or sitting in an office and signing a document.

Depends on where you live. There’s a very similar case in Germany from 2 years ago compared to what’s going on now.

In Germany a cop was murdered and someone posted on Facebook: “Not a single second of silence for these creatures.”

The courts have ruled that even “liking” a comment/post like that could be a crime.

https://winfuture.de/news,131418.html

The other post had it just as bad if not worse before it was removed entirely.

I tried to bring up the point that a system where we kill CEOs because we don’t like their business practices isn’t going to fix anything and the downvotes immediately poured in.

Either this is just the way that a lot of people on Lemmy think, or there’s some concerted effort/psyop trying to stir discontent among the users here.

For a bit there I was doubting if I even wanted to be associated with Lemmy anymore, but at least it looks like the mods have been cleaning up the worst comments.

That’s not what I’m saying or implying in any way.

No… A closer comparison shows that she would be like Sam Bankman-Fried with a 25 year sentence and ordered to repay $11 billion. Although she probably would end up on a cover of Forbes.

Can you expand on this?
Either you replied to the wrong comment, or you’re clearly thinking of some context that I’m not, or it’s related to some saying that I’m not familiar with.

I think it’s a valid question. I wouldn’t say that the only reason for abolishing the death penalty is because we might make a mistake… that definitely factors into it, but there’s more to it.

Ask yourself what purpose does it serve to put someone to death? They’re already in jail/prison and no longer a threat to society. Deterrence? Is the death penalty any more of a deterrence than a life sentence?

The only purpose I can think of for the death penalty is that it’s for “Revenge”. It doesn’t actually fix anything in of itself. It doesn’t resolve disputes, it doesn’t really solve anything.

The amount of people in here pushing for the death penalty when it’s used on people they dislike is sickening…

This is a penalty that needs to be abolished, not expanded or made exceptions for.

Except, if we already had protections to prevent this from happening, then it wouldn’t have happened… Or at least the FDIC would have actually stepped in by now to pay everyone back and track down all the funds themselves.

Well, there is the Budapest memorandum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

In exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear arsenal, we’re supposed to help them in the case of a nuclear attack.

I’ve never looked into Blockchain Capital much before, some quick search results show that they have invested in BlueSky (not enough to own/run the company from what I could find), but I don’t see anything that associates them with nazis.

How are you defining nazis here? What leads you to believe that Blockchain Capital is a nazi company? What links are there from Steve Banon to Blockchain Capital?

Do you just call the owners of any company a Nazi? How are you defining Nazis here?
Judging by your upvotes I must be out of the loop on something here.

I tried to look into this claim and all I found was a CEO that’s also a software dev Jay Graber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Graber (Nothing controversial that I could find in her posts at a cursory glance)

A software dev that worked on XMPP (Jeremy Miller): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremie_Miller

And the CEO and founder of TechDirt (Mike Masnick): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Masnick

What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?

Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?

This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/

Thanks! It’s a good read and I like the idea of a private cloud compute (PCC) system, but that doesn’t mention anywhere that ChatGPT will be running in that PCC system (if you were trying to imply that).

And while OpenAI could implement something similar to PCC, I haven’t seen them announce that anywhere either.

I’d say the proof is on Apple to show that it’s being done on-device or that all processing is done on iCloud servers.

You’re saying that OpenAI is just going to hand over their full ChatGPT model for Apple to set up on their own servers for free?

But from the article itself:

the partnership could burn extra money for OpenAI, because it pays Microsoft to host ChatGPT’s capabilities on its Azure cloud

I get it if they created a small version of their LLM to run locally, but I would expect Apple to pay a price even for that.

I think you may be confusing this ChatGPT integration with Apple’s own LLM that they’re working on… Again, from the linked article:

Still, Apple’s choice of ChatGPT as Apple’s first external AI integration has led to widespread misunderstanding, especially since Apple buried the lede about its own in-house LLM technology that powers its new “Apple Intelligence” platform.

What? No. I would rather use my own local LLM where the data never leaves my device. And if I had to submit anything to ChatGPT I would want it anonymized as much as possible.

Is Apple doing the right thing? Hard to say, any answer here will just be an opinion. There are pros and cons to this decision and that’s up to the end user to decide if the benefits of using ChatGPT are worth the cost of their data. I can see some useful use cases for this tech, and I don’t blame Apple for wanting to strike while the iron is hot.

There’s not much you can really do to strip out identifying data from prompts/requests made to ChatGPT. Any anonymization of that part of the data is on OpenAI to handle.
Apple can obfuscate which user is asking for what as well as specific location data, but if I’m using the LLM and I tell it to write up a report while including my full name in my prompt/request… that’s all going directly into OpenAIs servers and logs which they can eventually use to help refine/retrain their model at some point.

I’m sure you understand this, but anonymized data doesn’t mean it can’t be deanonymized. Given the right kind of data, or enough context they can figure out who you are fairly quickly.

Ex: You could “Anonymize” gps traces, but it would still show the house you live at and where you work unless you strip out a lot of the info.

http://androidpolice.com/strava-heatmaps-location-identity-doxxing-problem/

Now with LLMs, sure, you could “anonymize” which user said or asked for what… but if something identifying is sent in the request itself, it won’t be hard to deanonymize that data.