freejazz

7 ms·

151.
by freejazz 4mo ago
The public would happily string up any of these CEOs if given the chance
152.
by freejazz 4mo ago
Silence? Even the pope has come out against AI? Who hasn't? Diplo??
153.
by freejazz 4mo ago
>So? Since when is there a floor for the number of jobs a business has to create? There doesn't have to be but since when is it not in a municipalities ability to make determinations as to what kinds of business can operate within i
154.
by freejazz 4mo ago
> doing anything illegal You are just putting off the hard work into "doing anything illegal" which is even more ironic considering this is a thread about people either a)passing laws which make constructing ai datacenters ill
155.
by freejazz 4mo ago
>How about the nuclear button? We do every 4 years
156.
by freejazz 4mo ago
> Yes, I literally support repealing laws that would prevent someone from building an AI data center anywhere it's legal to build any kind of commercial or industrial facility at all. That's not the same thing as the question I
157.
by freejazz 4mo ago
NIMBY YIMBY have no value when you apply them this indistinctly. You're for any AI data center?
158.
by freejazz 4mo ago
"Lengthy community dialogue" is your assumption
159.
by freejazz 4mo ago
> you might need to excuse Anthropic for originally using pirated material to train their models You have it backwards
160.
by freejazz 4mo ago
A cynical and bad faith response, why even bother to write anything?
161.
by freejazz 4mo ago
It's your assumption that they spent the day getting things "right". Information just traveled slower back then
162.
by freejazz 4mo ago
They were liable for copying the books in the first place, regardless of whether or not they trained the AI with them. Read the opinion.
163.
by freejazz 4mo ago
They didn't train on the books and that court only found that the pirating was illegal anyway.
164.
by freejazz 4mo ago
Just overly hubristic
165.
by freejazz 4mo ago
So? What about the authors of all the works these companies stole?
166.
by freejazz 4mo ago
Why? They often don't make sense. They send DMCA takedowns over materials they can't even copyright, for example. They fessed up to creating shadow libraries that they didn't even use in their training corpus, resulting in th
167.
by freejazz 4mo ago
Why would it not be fair use?
168.
by freejazz 4mo ago
New York City actually has a law that prohibits theaters from banning theatrical critics. Back in the day, the theaters just banned all the critics.
169.
by freejazz 4mo ago
>Banning lawyers who are currently engaging in litigation against MSG is prudent, not a vendetta. That's not what he did though
170.
by freejazz 4mo ago
And recumbents on descents? Yeeeucchhh
171.
by freejazz 4mo ago
That's a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. This would, at best, be useful for someone doing a time trial. I don't see road racers using it in any other context.
172.
by freejazz 4mo ago
Copying for me, not for thee
173.
by freejazz 4mo ago
Hope you are being sarcastic
174.
by freejazz 4mo ago
People were already talking about Trump because he's the President. I didn't bring up Kamala, you did. > A turd is a turd even if it floats Okay? Again, you brought up Kamala
175.
by freejazz 4mo ago
That's definitely your opinion, I can't say I agree and you oddly took the messages out of context while insisting they already were. Do you know what a motion to dismiss is, by the way?
176.
by freejazz 4mo ago
Causing children to commit suicide
177.
by freejazz 4mo ago
Just from reading the threads here it seems readily apparent that he then went to start this company that did these bad things. Does not seem confusing at all?
178.
by freejazz 4mo ago
Why shouldn't the court entertain it? If Character is innocent, shouldn't they have the opportunity to have the accusations disproven?
179.
by freejazz 4mo ago
It's the medium, not the message.
180.
by freejazz 4mo ago
> But Trump being a complete idiot doesn't make Kamala not shitty and uninspiring to voters Okay, and? Did anyone even dispute that?

More ›