freejazz

22 ms·

571.
by freejazz 1y ago
Do you ever litigate torts? Being 'traumatized' is not a legal claim to which simply stating 'I was traumatized' serves as any evidence, so I'm not sure what it is you think you'd be sparing the world. It is ob
572.
by freejazz 1y ago
It was a recall...
573.
by freejazz 1y ago
>Am I now assured that the copyright is mine if the code is generated by AI? Certainly not in the US
574.
by freejazz 1y ago
I'm but a mere lawyer, not a godly developer.
575.
by freejazz 1y ago
It's only a problem if you don't want to be legally obligated to produce it. Either way, probably paying lawyer time for a response. Not that I disagree with you at all.
576.
by freejazz 1y ago
Not sure what that would have to do with a subpoena to OpenAI
577.
by freejazz 1y ago
Yes, expected at some point. Everyone knows when the election will happen, who is running, etc.
578.
by freejazz 1y ago
It is true that one cannot produce the data that one does not collect. I'm not sure that is a revelation.
579.
by freejazz 1y ago
>In reality, Uber records and conflicting statements incriminated him. He seems to be the one who provided the ChatGPT record to try to prove that the fire was unintentional.[1] Do you think OpenAI wont produce responsive records when it
580.
by freejazz 1y ago
Okay? Not sure how that justifies the response I was addressing
581.
by freejazz 1y ago
Isn't that besides the point? The point is that something would actually burn down.
582.
by freejazz 1y ago
> Cursed to be incapable of achievement because what else remains to be achieved He could do some good for a change... At least the guilded-age wealthy had some sort of shame which fed into an interest in bettering society
583.
by freejazz 1y ago
Hit piece? Thiel does it to himself
584.
by freejazz 1y ago
What do you mean framing doesn't matter? You just called the other post 'acidic' The idea that a CBA is somehow useful outside of any moral context is facially ridiculous anyway. You're just spewing word-mumbo-jumbo. The
585.
by freejazz 1y ago
>I want us to use cost-benefit analysis to judge infrastructure projects rather than the heavy moral framing we get a lot. By framing a regulation as some ploy? You're just as ridiculous
586.
by freejazz 1y ago
>Never a bad decision that you don’t seem to rush to the comments section to defend. And always with such specious reasoning
587.
by freejazz 1y ago
>Even if you had what you believed was solid evidence supporting your argument? I bet you wouldn't. Ugh, what?
588.
by freejazz 1y ago
Because you can get rid of liabilities...
589.
by freejazz 1y ago
I think they are highlighting that you did miss the point >Intent is not a lofty concept, it's at the heart of what art is.
590.
by freejazz 1y ago
> "the things that people tend to care about" Weird. That's another phrase I don't see in the post. >You're allowed to like your thing Massively generous of you, thanks.
591.
by freejazz 1y ago
The poster you are responding to did not make any reference to "consumer preference"
592.
by freejazz 1y ago
>Oy! Why do people do what? Give an AI-slop response and pretend it's informative or helpful for the discussion. And now you're arguing about what it told you! But you have no idea what of it is real, let alone accurate. The wh
593.
by freejazz 1y ago
You're being purposefully obtuse and have made no effort to understand me at all
594.
by freejazz 1y ago
The odd defensiveness of it wherever any criticism is labeled as some sort of philosophy against thinking. >And you're enough of an expert on all subjects to judge? Never claimed to be
595.
by freejazz 1y ago
I don't think it's the controversy of his guests so much as many of their unqualified ramblings that get treated as expertise. It's really obnoxious that it all gets put into political controversy when it's just often fa
596.
by freejazz 1y ago
Sure, what isn't fair about debating the headline in the comments without reading the article?
597.
by freejazz 1y ago
>"you'll get disappeared by secret police for what you told your coworker in confidence" Not if you aren't brown. But if you are... well you can easily get caught up in an "immigration" "sting"
598.
by freejazz 1y ago
I've done it several times, you're not engaging in a good faith discussion.
599.
by freejazz 1y ago
>I'm talking about what their comment means. You are not an authority on that. Neither are you. Yet... >Especially when they already made a followup comment saying you interpreted them wrong. Once again, you aren't getting t
600.
by freejazz 1y ago
>So that's per citation? Then two minutes each is a waste of time for basic checking. No, it's not two minutes per citation. >This accusation is not supported by what they said. It is. >Again a lot of that comment is abou

More ›