I’m pretty sure LLMs have exactly reproduced copyrighted passages.
If I asked you to recite a popular poem, nursery rhyme, a song, or book passage there’s a good chance you could. Everyone can recite things word for word.
It’s the same with LLM’s, if they’re asked to generate, for example, an article written by the New York Post about a specific topic they really did write about, then it’s similar to asking someone to recite a poem or song.
Like fuck it is. An LLM “learns” by memorization and by breaking down training data into their component tokens, then calculating the weight between these tokens.
But this is, at a very basic fundamental level, how biological brains learn. It’s not the whole story, but it is a part of it.
there’s no actual intelligence, just really, really fancy fuzzy math.
You mean sapience or consciousness. Or you could say “human-level intelligence”. But LLM’s by definition have real “actual” intelligence, just not a lot of it.
Edit for the lowest common denominator: I’m suggesting a more accurate way of phrasing the sentence, such as “there’s no actual sapience” or “there’s no actual consciousness”. /end-edit
an LLM would learn “2+2 = 4” by ingesting tens or hundreds of thousands of instances of the string “2+2 = 4” and calculating a strong relationship between the tokens “2+2,” “=,” and “4,”
This isn’t true. At all. There are math specific benchmarks made by experts to specifically test the problem solving and domain specific capabilities of LLM’s. And you can be sure they aren’t “what’s 2 + 2?”
I’m not here to make any claims about the ethics or legality of the training. All I’m commenting on is the science behind LLM’s.
That is the point of E2EE. If anyone but the sender and receiver can see the messages then it’s not E2EE. This is the part that politicians and governments don’t understand (or just ignore). The idea that some designated authority can look at the messages when needed is entirely at odds with E2EE. It’s as valid as true = false or 2 + 2 = cat.
No digital game store is worth your loyalty.
When that store is run by a company that contributes massively to open source and works harder and puts more money into enabling alternate platforms for gaming than all other companies combined; ya, they have my loyalty.
I would love to see reasonable competition to steam which would give consumers and developers better options
No one’s going to compete with and outdo Steam with Linux support.
How do you moderate something you can’t know about?
only take halfhearted measures
Like what exactly?
No, because it isn’t 2015 anymore.
I remember cities moving onto open source and than thanks for lobbyists moving back to proprietary software again.
What you remember is the news cycle covering the City of Munich switching from Windows to Linux, then another news cycle about how they’re moving back to Windows.
What didn’t get much coverage though, is that Microsoft did a (suspected under-table) deal with the outgoing government to switch back to Windows if Microsoft built an office in Munich.
What then happened is the new government came in, looked at the situation, and cancelled it (although MS may have built that office always). Right now Munich is still using Linux and still actively rolling it out.
Last I’d heard other options either didn’t have infrastructure to charge vehicles on long trips
Literally isn’t an issue going forward. Other EVs can use Tesla chargers.
Odysee and Rumble are the platforms that wackjobs (like flat earthers) have flocked to in the past year or so.
Those platforms aren’t promoting that content per se, it’s just that such content isn’t moderated like on YouTube and Facebook. And before you say “but there’s tons of that stuff on YouTube and Facebook already!” it doesn’t compare.
They’re already talking about breaking up Google/Alphabet
But it could also be for legal reasons, like websites where you can post stuff for everybody to see, in case you post something highly illegal and the authorities need to find you. Another example is where a webshop is required to keep a copy of your data for their bookkeeping.
None of these require your account to “exist”. There could simply be an acknowledgement stating those reasons with “after X days the data will be deleted, and xyz will be archived for legal reasons”.
Mostly it’s 30-90 days where they keep your data, just in case somebody else decided to delete your account or you were drunk or something
This is the only valid reason. But even then this could be stated so that the user is fully aware. Then an email one week and another one day before deletion as a reminder, and a final confirmation after the fact. I’ve used services before that do this. It’s done well and appreciated.
This pseudo-deletion shadow account stuff is annoying.
What the user was doing is that they don’t trust that the system truly deleted the account, and they worry it was just deactivated (while claiming it was “deleted”). So they tried to do a password recovery which often reactivates a falsely “deleted” account.
I’ve done this before and had to message the company and have them confirm the account is entirely deleted.
I don’t glow in the dark, I’m just pretty much see-through. I also burn in a matter of minutes in the sun.
Who uses a tuner these days?
Anyone who uses an antenna. There’s a bunch of decent channels, like the news, you can get with an OTA antenna.
Modern TV signal is just via Ethernet
No. What you just described is “modern cable TV”. OTA channels are digital signals also.
That would be just a monitor, wouldn’t it?
No. The distinguishing feature between a monitor and a TV is that a TV has a tuner built into it.
There are other things like the variety of inputs and screen position settings on monitors, but those are mostly minor.
Yes, literally every single person on this planet can recite a song or poem.
But there are naturally massive differences between a human brain and an LLM. The point I was making is that an LLM doesn’t copy and store books and articles wholesale. The ability to reproduce samples from the dataset is more of a quirk than a feature, in the same way that a person can memorize things.