You really need to read up on American history.

Look at what Texas did to HISD: took it over claiming “poor outcomes” despite it being one of the best districts in the state. I’m not sure how it works in Virginia but they may try something similar.

You mean the rumored several alternatives, that I asked you to elaborate on, and you told me to Google? Yes, clearly you listed specifics.

Oh fascinating, the top response is working for a subscription-based publication that has editorial staff and pays them. The second is freelancing for a subscription-based publication by selling articles to them. Wow.

Do tell.

Either it’s not paywalled for them or it’s still good journalism and maybe journalists shouldn’t work for free.

I get you. There’s good and bad in law enforcement, especially when it comes to tech and social media. On the one hand, there’s pretty serious crime happening online that needs to be stopped. On the other, wild invasions of privacy. There’s no easy answer at this point and governments obviously won’t police themselves.

You don’t need motive to convict. Just the correct mental state (mens rea) and the commission of the relevant elements (actus reus). Motive helps, but it’s not necessary.

But a DDOS attack would probably fall under the CFAA, possibly some other criminal statutes depending on the facts.

And yet, and this will shock and amaze you, they’re probably here already. Lemmy isn’t a secret.

Probably because it’s expected, it’s happening “somewhere else” to “minorities,” and the people being racist aren’t always using slurs. Same reason news outlets don’t really report on crime in known high-crime areas. Many people do not understand that these issues also affect them because it normalizes racist behavior, which in turn hurts the economy.

Oreo O’s. Easily the best.

Not sure about the specifics but it might not be enforceable. Just because a company says something in their TOS doesn’t mean it’s true.

These reports are showing it’s not just a couple bad justices, it’s a systemic ethical failure.

You’re making a hasty generalization here

I’m really not, though I’ll readily admit I’m simplifying things. An LLM can only create something it’s been given. I guess it can generate a string of characters and assign a definition to it, but it’s not really intentional creation. There are many similarities between how a human generates something and how an LLM does, but to argue they’re the same radically oversimplifies how humans work. While we can program an LLM, we literally do not have the capability to replicate a human brain.

For example, can you tell me what emotions the LLM had when it produced the output it did? Did its physical condition have any effect? What about its past, not just what it has learned but how it was treated? What is its motivation? A human response to anything involving creativity factors in many things that we aren’t even consciously aware of, and these are things an LLM doesn’t have.

The study you’re citing is from Google, there’s likely some bias and selective reporting. That said, we were talking about creativity, not regurgitating facts or analyzing data. I think it’s universally accepted that as the tech gets better, it’s preferable to have a computer make the first attempt at a diagnosis, especially for a scan or large data analysis, then have a human confirm.

For the remix example, don’t forget that samples get attribution. Artists credit what they sampled and get called out when they don’t. I’m actually unclear as to whether an LLM actually can cite to how it derived its output just because the coders haven’t revealed if there’s some sort of derivation log.

An LLM can’t make something original, it can only make something derivative. But that derivative work isn’t the same as when a human makes a derivative work because a human isn’t writing each word or phrase based on the likely “correct” next word or phrase through an algorithmic process. What humans do is magnitudes more complex, though it can at times also be accidental or intentional plagiarism.

In short, an LLM’s output is necessarily a string of preexisting human inputs. A human’s output, while it can be informed by and reference other human inputs, can be an original analysis. The AI that is publicly available is not sophisticated enough to be more than fancy predictive text.

Because the LLM is also outputting the copyrighted material.

But when the answers aren’t original thoughts but regurgitations of other peoples’ thoughts about the book, then it’s plagiarism. LLMs can’t provide original output, only variations on what people have made available (whether legally or not). The answer might not even be correct or make any sense. It’s just predictive text to a crazy degree.

When you copy someone’s work without attribution, that’s plagiarism. When your output is only possible because of someone else’s work over which they own copyright and the output replicated the copyrighted material, that’s copyright infringement.

Probably a three way tie among:

Nirvana - MTV Unplugged in New York

Portishead - Roseland NYC Live

Dave Matthews Band - The Central Park Concert

I also have a soft spot for The Complete Monterey Pop Festival

Think about how well the SSA is funded and then consider where they might have cost cut. You’d be surprised how much contract IT eats into a budget.

Play to your audience, not your opponent. Occasionally they’re the same person.