Not for a few years at least, if ever. And building this capacity costs money they will want to recoup.

Dungeon crawl stone soup. Can be played with keyboard only.

Is Tesla sabotaging their own cars in order to commit insurance fraud?

Several timeline rating agencies have rated this timeline in the bottom quartile.

Measles kills memory cells, effectively factory resetting your immune system.

I’m starting to think an article referring to LLM as AI is s red flag, while them referring to them as LLM is a green flag.

I sort of think we should be really mean to these people.

First of all, copying or modifying somebody else’s work without their permission isn’t theft. Information cannot be owned in the way a physical object can be, as access to information is nonexclusive, meaning any number of people can use the same piece of information without impeding each other. Contrast that with physical objects, say a car. If I’m using your car, you can’t use it, because I’m doing so. If I copy your book, you still have the original. Hence its not theft.

Copyright is a legal privilege governments grant to artists, so that the artists can be paid for their work. (In practice, it mostly protects big publishers and a few wealthy artists. Most artists can’t afford to the legal battle necessary to get the state to actually enforce the legal privilege they’ve been granted).

This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent.

You are conflating copyright infringement and plagiarism. Plagiarism is claiming that you created the works of somebody else. This is morally wrong, regardless of whether you have the consent of the original author. By claiming that you created something you didn’t, you are lying to your audience. (In fact, even disguising your earlier work as new is considered plagiarism). The plagiarist is not a thief, they’re a liar. When you put somebody’s work into an LLM, and claim you created the output, you have committed plagiarism. Unless you credit every work used in the training of said LLM.

when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi’d; no matter how long ago it came out.

You do know that Luigi Mangione plead not guilty to the charges? And yet you use his name as a euphemism for murder. You can’t own information, copying it is not stealing.

They can just eat the bombs they find during their work. Like a barn 🐈. They also just eat the mice they catch.

Considering what Trump and L1 are doing, Democrats should put every rock they find into their path. Instead they do this. Cowardice.

There were a number of mods that fixed that, which I would like to note is not a defense of the game. The one I used was Ordinator, which is a perk overhaul. For the magic skills, it makes it so that the first perk of the tree makes spells scale, up to twice as much damage once you max the skill out. The magic perk trees in that mod also provided a bunch of other nifty abilities. For example Illusion had a perk that added I think 1d20 power to spells such as ‘fear’, allowing you to try your luck in casting them at targets that are normally out of range.

AI content already appears to be at the point where it’s absence is considered positive.

Could you link a screenshot of the LinkedIn post? I don’t want to make a LinkedIn account.

Well, meowmeowbeanz has a good point, namely, Anonymous saying anything is meaningless. Because Anonymous is a not a group, at best it could be called a movement, at worst it’s just a name. In any case, anybody can claim to speak for them. Hence their statements are meaningless.

However, meowmeowbeanz’s post is also a barely coherent rant with overused emphasis. Which makes them seem mentally unwell. It’s like encountering somebody with a tinfoil hat ranting about how the earth is round.

Adding another recommendation: Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup

Properly prosecute Trump, for example.

That .gif is a classic.

LLMs are the former. And we’re probably at least one breakthrough away from building something that can actually think. Not helping things is that we don’t know what thinking actually is.

You can’t just throw out random Wikipedia links. For example, the Article on AGI explicitly says we don’t have a definition of what human level cognition actually is. Which is what the person you were replying to was saying. You’re doing a fallacious appeal to authority, except that the authority doesn’t agree with you.

You’ve got my vote. (I’m not actually allowed to vote in the US election)