freejazz

3 ms·

31.
by freejazz 12d ago
isn't that when the training costs are actually accounted for?
32.
by freejazz 12d ago
>Can you explain why you believe this? Well, as a starter, I've been told that AI will take my job for at least 3 years now. That's not happening. In fact, what's happening is that I now have an AI vendor BEGGING me to u
33.
by freejazz 12d ago
It's publicly documented throughout the years of coverage of him on this and other websites
34.
by freejazz 12d ago
Sorry, why doesn't the evidence that Dario is a liar suffice here? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. We're already past the first situation.
35.
by freejazz 16d ago
I'm not taking them at their word, sorry. Genuinely, there is no reason to.
36.
by freejazz 16d ago
What legal issues?
37.
by freejazz 16d ago
lol you can't copyright mathematics
38.
by freejazz 16d ago
Yeah, and suckers are born every day...
39.
by freejazz 16d ago
> but I can believe it to be accidental What accident is it when the system is designed to function that way?
40.
by freejazz 16d ago
What a weird conclusion to come to looking at the world around you
41.
by freejazz 16d ago
Yeah, they didn't choose the line of attack, the person they copied it from did..
42.
by freejazz 17d ago
>and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." Legally safe? Forensic level guarantee? Since when do they make t
43.
by freejazz 17d ago
They do look pretty stupid right now, actually.
44.
by freejazz 17d ago
It's one of those questions that sets the bar so low, the conversation might as well not be taking place
45.
by freejazz 17d ago
> do people really think OpenAI is snooping at people specifically? I'd be shocked if they weren't
46.
by freejazz 17d ago
What does it matter? We're supposed to not call it plagiarism anymore because it's inconvenient to call it the plagiarism machine? What's your actual argument? Otherwise it's completely irrelevant what an LLM does in oth
47.
by freejazz 17d ago
>I refuted all these accusations but he replied “there is nothing you can do, I simply do not trust you”. I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering Pretty insane i
48.
by freejazz 17d ago
They are already claimed to be liars
49.
by freejazz 18d ago
I don't think the poster was crying for those leaders
50.
by freejazz 18d ago
Still waiting for anyone to point to any good done by prediction markets
51.
by freejazz 23d ago
The third circuit's opinion is poorly reasoned and its not binding precedent in California anyway, which can now regulate Kalshi because the ninth circuit's decision is binding precedent in California. Congress does not need to
52.
by freejazz 23d ago
Yeah but they markets don't equilibrate. Again, the 2022 election pool just reflected the thought of a big whale.
53.
by freejazz 23d ago
They are partisan. It's just whoever decides to make the bets. Like the 2022 election situation was just one big whale. There's just nothing about it that makes it inherently non-partisan.
54.
by freejazz 23d ago
Nothing needs to be done, Kalshi has no loophole. The Ninth Circuit ruled on exactly this last week.
55.
by freejazz 23d ago
>the rationalist community seems to have had a longstanding interest in the idea Easiest way to know its just valueless
56.
by freejazz 23d ago
> competent DOJ Answered your own question.
57.
by freejazz 23d ago
This website has been full of people that say it's better than journalism, so I don't think you're really capturing the entirety of the dynamic
58.
by freejazz 23d ago
Yeah, and? Being a parent doesn't entitle someone to do anything they want
59.
by freejazz 1mo ago
[flagged]
60.
by freejazz 1mo ago
> You know what point I was making Try being as generous as you demand of others

More ›