6 ms·
Let's say you are hallucinating "two distinct meanings of fork". Unless you are referring to tableware, a fork is a fork, it's any distribution of a software, b
by krick 2y ago
Let's say you are hallucinating "two distinct meanings of fork". Unless you are referring to tableware, a fork is a fork, it's any distribution of a software, based on the software in question. The fact that most forks on GitHub serve only operational purpose, nobody actively maintains them and nobody normally uses them instead of the parent project, doesn't change what they are: a distributions for (potentially, and unless PR is accepted, actually) distinct software projects, based on a project they are forked from. You are just so used to the button and the process, you lost track of what the label on that button actually means, why it's called "a fork". And the answer is, well, because it's a fork. In no way it is different from starting a MariaDB project. As soon as you press that button, you are distributing your own software, based on that parent software. If the parent project disappears, or moves on, or never accepts your PR, which somebody really likes, other people can (and probably will) use your fork in a way that isn't any different than, well, any larger and "more obvious" fork.
So, essentially, winamp license means nothing. They already forfeited their right to deny you forking by posting it on GitHub.
- beepbooptheory 2y agoJust an aside, but really hope "maybe you're hallucinating..." doesn't catch on in human to human speech.. Its great for the models, kinda too flattening for real discourse.
- 486sx33 2y ago“…maybe you’re hallucinating…” and “…I must be hallucinating…” Have been part of human to human communication since the 60s, when people in fact could very seriously have been. It continued on for acid flashbacks and other surreal moments
- beepbooptheory 2y agoThats certainly true, and at least in philosophy similar discourses go back much farther than that! But the senses are importantly different right? In the former, we are talking about clearly psychological assertions, in the form of skepticism, within an otherwise shared world. Here it is clearly rhetorical though, right? Talking to GP as if they were LLM. Using it for a not-so-shorthand for "I believe you to be wrong about this". Its really not a big deal. It's just interesting, I guess, how much the tools tend to master us and change us while we lie to ourselves that its the other way around. Also, hadn't heard "acid flashbacks" in a long time.. Still waiting for mine!
- EchoReflection 2y agoI've used LSD a few times, but to my knowledge never had any "acid flashbacks". Maybe that's for the best... but seems like it might be fun if one was in a safe environment.
- Delk 2y ago"Maybe you're hallucinating", let alone "let's say you're hallucinating", is a really weird take on someone thinking of a reasonable semantic distinction even if you disagree about its existence or relevance. Perhaps you can say that to a friend as banter or in a tongue-in-cheek way, similarly to how you might say "I must be hallucinating" about yourself. But as an argument in a discussion with a stranger, it seems rather dismissive and inappropriate. And it does reek a bit like something stolen from LLM terminology.
- dangitman 2y ago[dead]