freejazz

39 ms·

901.
by freejazz 2y ago
> They aren't references to internal concepts, the model is not aware that it's doing anything so how could it "explain itself"? You should read OpenAI's brief on the issue of fair use in its cases. It's fu
902.
by freejazz 2y ago
Your entire post is premised on rational people only being rationalists
903.
by freejazz 2y ago
No one is suggesting only taxing billionaires to the tune of netting solely an additional $1B, that seems farcical.
904.
by freejazz 2y ago
Wait, we're designing bedding now? Not just remaking our beds? What a strained analogy that when you 'remake' your bed and it's the 'same' (why would it be different?) then you didn't improve the design ?
905.
by freejazz 2y ago
>Because you clearly don't understand communism and you need it explained to you. I literally never said a single thing about communism. I'm not sure if you have me mixed up with another poster or what but this is just even mor
906.
by freejazz 2y ago
It's not literal and I have a hard time believing you couldn't figure that out when I used 'amazon-economy' and not just 'amazon'. No less so in the context of a thread comparing capitalism (which was represent
907.
by freejazz 2y ago
What on the face of those two statements is a conflict?
908.
by freejazz 2y ago
So how is the Amazon-economy a more moral choice than communism?
909.
by freejazz 2y ago
Because giving it to Amazon is making society better?
910.
by freejazz 2y ago
On what basis? Is there a law that says they can't tax estates?
911.
by freejazz 2y ago
Yes!
912.
by freejazz 2y ago
Probably because people are realizing that it has the auto-delete feature that the Whitehouse is DEFINITELY not relying on in having senior staff communicate on this platform.
913.
by freejazz 2y ago
Looking forward to the eventual spoliation finding when DOGE has to support its facially dishonest reasoning for the firings it ordered.
914.
by freejazz 2y ago
By what, sending another message to him?
915.
by freejazz 2y ago
Yet... Or, to put it another way, you presume that investors want to hear how they will make money, as opposed to wanting to hear that OpenAI can 'talk the talk'
916.
by freejazz 2y ago
I believe the post you're responding to is sarcastic.
917.
by freejazz 2y ago
>Of course, they could have been lying at that point, in order to gain interest I suppose , but they were pretty outspoken about that idea at least in the beginning. I don't see how those notions contradict each other when it's
918.
by freejazz 2y ago
So you basically want to give effect to any claim that isn't brought to court of being brought to Court? How does that make anything better? It's going to mean more lawsuits, a waste of judicial resources, and probably moot cases
919.
by freejazz 2y ago
I'm not sure what one has to do with the other nor why it would be an issue prohibiting a discussion. We might disagree about what your agenda is, but surely everyone has an "agenda". Were your responses not what you wanted t
920.
by freejazz 2y ago
Sorry I have not heard of a single instance where a foreigner was denied entry into the US because of their beliefs about January 6, I think you're going to need to support an assertion like that when you say it has happened "lots
921.
by freejazz 2y ago
I don't think you got my point (not a big surprise considering how your approach here is) which is that the Supreme Court have not shown an interest in curtailing executive power. Your posting here is akin to a boiling frog insisting t
922.
by freejazz 2y ago
>Would a researcher who said something like "J6 should have gone all the way" have been denied entry in 2021? I suspect they would have, and that many would have cheered that refusal. On what basis do you have for this belief?
923.
by freejazz 2y ago
It wasn't clear to me that the issue here is a lack of legal authority for this to have occurred.
924.
by freejazz 2y ago
What do you mean reign in? Last year they in a shocking overturn of centuries of political thought came to the finding that the presidential is immune from criminal prosecution for his acts as president and then offered no actual guidance o
925.
by freejazz 2y ago
What could anyone say about the US president that would justify this? An actual threat on his life? The secret service doesn't appear to be involved. There are no allegations its anything of the sort. Let's not disregard our own f
926.
by freejazz 2y ago
The Dead's template started as going on tour, selling LSD until it ran out
927.
by freejazz 2y ago
Sadly? They play all the time and aren't likely to die anytime soon. Catch them this spring or summer. And yeah, calling them prog is pretty accurate.
928.
by freejazz 2y ago
It isn't necessarily one or the other, it depends on numerous factors. Works can be made for hire as one example. Annie Liebowitz still is the author of a photograph even if she has her assistant pull the shutter. You might even be sur
929.
by freejazz 2y ago
>The actions by ‘you’ are necessary for the software to exist, so the argument must be about whether those actions count as development or not. Definition? Yes, but it's required over a hundred years of jurisprudence to apply it to
930.
by freejazz 2y ago
Typically you need the permission of a copyright owner to create derivatives of their work.

More ›