Would SCOTUS make an example of the wealthiest man in order to preserve their own relevance? 🤔

deleted by creator

Billionaires are often referred to as dragons because they horde wealth. A Guillotine that could know the difference and decide to only harm billionaires would be a technological marvel.

Real AGI is a Guillotine that only removes the heads of dragons.

Kind of reminds me of the government funding Star wars programs that never produced anything but was credited for spending the Soviet Union into their grave because they couldn’t keep up. But I don’t think it’s going to work the same this time…

Besiroglu says OpenAI did have access to many of the FrontierMath problems and solutions — but he added “we have a verbal agreement that these materials will not be used in model training.”

It’s not like the company building a plagiarism tool would use said tool to plagiarize training data. That would be inconceivable.

Protest can also be a form of art and memetic transmission. Don’t be so quick to dismiss others.

Sure, which is why installing it is largely a protest. I don’t think US tiktokkers are going to seriously learn pinyin so they can properly tag their post.

There’s already a mass exodus to RedNote, and I gotta say, I love that there are no ads.

What laws are preventing competition in the CRM space?

Yeah, because LLMs have shown they understand language and aren’t bullshitting us. /s

Like I get this might generate new leads to explore, but to say it’s a virtual cell as if the model is somehow self-consistent is malpractice.

AI is maturing into what exactly?

How to alienate your daughter:

This only convinces me AI can replace venture capitalists, not that it can do any actual work.

The revolutionary potential of a media platform is inverse to how mainstream it has become. Lemmy and mastadon don’t need to be big to be influential because the people who show up to those platforms are (relatively) engaged in their AFK communities.

It’s not a conspiracy, it is just the path of least resistance. Which is why capitalism is the problem.

Agents without agency is some real double speak and might reflect how many view workers.

The line and reasoning is borrowed from “Bimbo - a philosophical analysis” : https://youtu.be/FeRIE6JDhCQ , the line “I’m not dumb enough to rationalize my way through life” is a rebuttal of Nietzsche type attitudes.

I’m not dumb enough to rationalize my way through life, so just go with what you’re feeling. You don’t need to rationalize it for it to be valid.

I am so down to read that. Thx for the book rec