Other guy is being a bit of a dick, tbh, but you do realize that the PPP loans weren’t just “passed with little oversight”, right? Democrats tried to get oversight and Republicans fought tooth and nail to strip as much oversight as possible. There’s a reason that Republicans disproportionately scammed PPP loans after they were finally passed in an extremely urgent situation where some sort of relief absolutely needed to go out.

At the end of the day, legislation is compromise but one party has unraveling and selling off of the state as their goal, which makes the feasible compromise point a bit hard to create effective legislation. As a result, this means there are no effective or honest Republicans, but there are at least some effective or honest democrats. It’s a sucky situation that is hard to crawl out of.

If it’s patented, you can just read the patent to know what else is in it.

My point is just that they’re effectively describing a discriminator. Like, yeah, it entails a lot more tough problems to be tackled than that sentence makes it seem, but it’s a known and very active area of ML. Sure, there may be other metadata and contextual features to discriminate upon, but eventually those heuristics will inevitably be closed up and we’ll just end up with a giant distributed, quasi-federated GAN. Which, setting aside the externalities that I’m skeptical anyone in a position of power to address is equally in an informed position of understanding, is kind of neat in a vacuum.

Yes, it’s called a GAN and has been a fundamental technique in ML for years.

I am in Massachusetts. RCV was a ballot question. It lost. That means the voters didn’t want it. Overall, RCV is pushed by multiple members of the democratic party. So this idea that democrats don’t want it as some sort of secret party policy is wild.

Now, is it fucking dumb we didn’t vote RCV in MA? Absolutely. Most voters are actually fucking morons.

The straw thing is super interesting (all of it is really-- thanks for this explanation). I wonder if there is a way to do in-situ biochar of the straw that isn’t just setting the field on fire.

I’m reading it now. I recommend the book as well!

Yes, Hamas should be blamed for seizing and refusing to release hostages effectively gained via an ill conceived pogrom that no one could possibly have expected to have had any different of an outcome than it has had. The most accurate and reasonable observation that I saw after the October raid was simply, “Hamas just shot every Palestinian in the dick.”

With that said, none of this excuses Israel and the IDF’s response, regardless of his predictable it has been. Nor does it excuse an increasingly ethnofascist apartheid state.

I think if you can actually define reasoning, your comments (and those like yours) would be much more convincing. I’m just calling yours out because I’ve seen you up and down in this thread repeating it, but it’s a general observed of the vocal critics of the technology overall. Neither intelligence nor reasons (likewise understanding and knowing, for that matter) are easily defined in a way that is more useful than invoking spirits and ghosts. In this case, detecting patterns certainly seems a critical component of what we would consider to be reasoning. I don’t think it’s sufficient, buy it is absolutely necessary.

Genetic algorithms is a sort of broad category and there’s certainly ways you could federate and parallelize. I think autoML basically applies this within the ML space (multiple trainings explore a solution topology and convergence progress is compared between epochs, with low performers dropping out). Keep in mind, you can also use a genetic algorithm to learn how to explore an old fashioned state tree.

What are you even talking about? She explicitly addressed healthcare, women’s rights, and economic relief in the fucking debate, not to mention she has actual platform and policy on all the other topics you mentioned. Like, she has positions and lack of positions I strongly disagree with but stupid revisionist shit like this is such blatant misinformation, it’s distressing to think thus is what “informs” so many voters’ opinions.

Not great, so people should continue to apply pressure. And not just over Palestine, but over all MIC capture of our government. Otoh, this administration and hopefully Harris’ will continue it is one of the most union friendly in living memory and the FTC has been insanely active. If we’re lucky, we might even see the return of the CFPB as a legitimate and effective entity. So your characterization is beyond brain dead.

The actual entry into Afghanistan and overwhelming of local forces was wildly fast? The majority of our time in Afghanistan wasn’t slowly advancing on Kabul. It was failing miserably to build a coherent state sympathetic to US interests amidst a mad dash of privatized MIC interests maximally extracting revenues from the US.

Ummm…those people are absolutely not people who should be having children anyhow so I guess you’re dodging a while bunch of Bullets?

At the presidential level, there are in practical reality only two parties right now. Aside from the electoral realities, presidents also need to work with groups in congress, and only two parties are effectively present in congress. It sucks but it’s the reality we’re in. Now, this can change, but it needs to come from the bottom up via RCV and creating and enabling effective third+ parties at lower levels of government. Are you participating in your local and state level elections to enable creation of this necessary base of power and proof, or do you just run around online trying to find excuses to justify not voting? As for the choice we are faced with when it comes to Palestine, if you’ve been aware of this issue for more than the time it’s become a performative meme, then you’re well aware that there is a very real difference in the way the two parties enable Israeli crimes and merely by basic principles of harm reduction (because, at the end of the day, you should care about stopping as many people from being murdered as possible, not about signaling how wonderfully moral you are), it is very clear who is the more dangerous candidate.

Undecided are largely not actually undecided. They mostly vote along party lines. The point, in the current political climate, is to demotivate turnout of the other side’s undecided. And I think based on that, this was a deep loss for Trump. Outside the pundit sphere, he was literally a punchline and joke the entire night. Memes of the hilariously dumb shit he spewed almost instantly sprouted up and are all over the place.

Yes, inadvertent copying is still copying, but it would be copying in the output and is not evidence of copying happening in the creation of the model. That was why I used the music example, because it is rather probative of where there could be grounds for copyright infringement related to these model architectures. This may not seem an important distinction, but it has significant consequences on who is ultimately liable and how.

I get that that’s how it feels given how it’s being reported, but the reality is that due to the way this sort of ML works, what internet archive does and what an arbitrary GPT does are completely different, with the former being an explicit and straightforward copy relying on Fair Use defense and the latter being the industrialized version of intensive note taking into a notebook full of such notes while reading a book. That the outputs of such models are totally devoid of IP protections actually makes a pretty big difference imo in their usefulness to the entities we’re most concerned about, but that certainly doesn’t address the economic dilemma of putting an entire sector of labor at risk in narrow areas.

I have no personal interest in the matter, tbh. But I want people to actually understand what they’re advocating for and what the downstream effects would inevitably be. Model training is not inherently infringing activity under current IP law. It just isn’t. Neither the law, legislative or judicial, nor the actual engineering and operations of these current models support at all a finding of infringement. Effectively, this means that new legislation needs to be made to handle the issue. Most are effectively advocating for an entirely new IP right in the form of a “right to learn from” which further assetizes ideas and intangibles such that we get further shuffled into endstage capitalism, which most advocates are also presumably against.

Training data IS a massive industry already. You don’t see it because you probably don’t work in a field directly dealing with it. I work in medtech and millions and millions of dollars are spent acquiring training data every year. Should some new unique IP right be found on using otherwise legally rendered data to train AI, it is almost certainly going to be contracted away to hosting platforms via totally sound ToS and then further monetized such that only large and we’ll funded corporate entities can utilize it.