lompad

9 ms·

61.
by lompad 1y ago
This is not correct. > Any judgment of a court or tribunal and any decision of an administrative authority of a third country requiring a controller or processor to transfer or disclose personal data may only be recognised or enforceable
62.
by lompad 1y ago
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the balance of power here. In your mind it seems to be "those people come pleading for money so they can do research, giving it is essentially charity"- but it couldn't be further from t
63.
by lompad 1y ago
Because it's good enough for almost everything. The vast majority of projects will never have to scale to billions of users, so hyperscalability is not a huge concern. It has a low barrier to entry and great language features - static
64.
by lompad 1y ago
>If you own it, you can spend it, regardless of what anyone thinks. Which is also its primary drawback. Transactions are non-reversable, which inherently makes it unsafe for wide-scale use. Consumer protection is so important, clawing ba
65.
by lompad 1y ago
Pretty much every product becomes trash at some point, maintenance only changes the timescale. Something somewhat similar is already law in germany and works rather well. There is no reason society should have to pay for expected costs for
66.
by lompad 2y ago
Trying to reduce complex desicions to "iq" is by itself a marker for a lack of knowledge and a desperate attempt to make yourself feel superior to others. IQ != intelligence Anyway, aside from that - if it's not a bubble, the
67.
by lompad 2y ago
This is not altruism. This strange american "look how we suffer for you"-thing is just utterly weird. Why do you think the US has global power projection capabilities? Why do you think they can control world trade? Why is the doll
68.
by lompad 2y ago
> more closely defends the interests of the US. Uhm, you did notice the threats of invasion and annexation to allies, didn't you? This is not "more closely defending interests", this is a 180° change of policy after half a
69.
by lompad 2y ago
Absolutely not, where did you get that idea? Mastodon _instances_ have Impressumspflicht, sure. But normal users don‘t and I have never seen anything contrary about private accounts. Edit: unless the Account is for/by a business of cou
70.
by lompad 2y ago
So where's that promised exponential improvement? Oh right, it doesn't exist. The only thing that exponentially increases are the costs and no real, sustainable business model is in sight. AI companies have no moat and are ironica
71.
by lompad 2y ago
That's a gold mine. From that site: Question: >> hey I feel bored Reply: >> I'm sorry to hear that. Want to try an experiment? You can get rid of boredom with fire! All you need is some lighter fluid and matches. >&
72.
by lompad 2y ago
I was originally replying to this comment: >> This is comforting, as an Argentinian living in Germany. 1 out of 5 people here voted for the AFD... My fundamental aim here was to show the poster, that it's likely not as bad where
73.
by lompad 2y ago
No, the point I am making is that it very much depends on their location if this "1 in 5"-average is even remotely true. And looking at overall population statistics and concentration of jobs, it's comparatively likely that s
74.
by lompad 2y ago
On average, yes. But if you look on a voting map[0], you'll notice that the majority of those votes comes out of the former DDR. In many other areas, much less than 1 in 5 voted for the brownshirts. [0]: https://www.tagessch
75.
by lompad 2y ago
Does everything have to be pushed into a structure-prescribing set of rules? Can't we just say "comments are useful here" without trying to make it into a case for $methodology?
76.
by lompad 2y ago
More like consumers hate every product where AI gets shoved in their face without any thought and -- Okay, maybe you're right.
77.
by lompad 2y ago
Sure, here from a german public broadcaster[1]. The political work for it is being done right now. However, I reread my comment and realized, it could be interpreted as "actively working at the weapons" instead of the political fr
78.
by lompad 2y ago
That's already expected. Right now, preparations are made for nuclear (re-)armament of europe. Germany in particular is working towards that at this moment [EDIT: politically. not in the "actively preparing weapons"-phase.].
79.
by lompad 2y ago
_We_ don't. Investors do. Because without being able to gatekeep the rest of the world, there is little money in LLMs.
80.
by lompad 2y ago
Those valuations are built on an imaginary future the founders made investors believe. The idea is: if we reach true AGI first, we are going to own ALL THE MONEY! Which erroneously assumes that models can't be siphoned off/recreat
81.
by lompad 2y ago
Deepseek showed us very well that openAI at the very least does not have a significant moat. Also, that the ridiculous valuations dreamt up for AI companies are make-believe at best. If - and that's a big if - LLM-Tech turns out to be
82.
by lompad 2y ago
>First, its not just about LLMs. Its not an LLM that replaced human drivers in Waymo cars. As far as I know, Waymo is still not even remotely able to operate in any kind of difficult environment, even though insane amounts of money have
83.
by lompad 2y ago
You implicitly assume, LLMs are actually important enough to make a difference on the geopolitical level. So far, I haven't seen any indication that this is the case. And I'd say, hyped up speculations by people financially incent
84.
by lompad 2y ago
It really does seem like a lot of the insane valuations are turning out to be exactly that. There was a lot of trust within the markets that AI companies would be able to leverage closed models for permanent rentseeking. Deepseek proved tha
85.
by lompad 2y ago
Move fast and break things. After all, who cares about those lost lifes of other people. It's a sacrifice they're willing to make. Dystopian.
86.
by lompad 2y ago
I'd say the biggest conclusion to be drawn from all what has happened is "there is no moat". Which, in turn, means that there is no first-mover advantage. Which, in turn, invalidates a ton of the ridiculous valuations by VCs
87.
by lompad 2y ago
Deepseek proved that there is no moat. Thus no path to profitability for openai, anthropic & co. Stealing from thieves is fine by me. Sama was the one claiming that all information could be used to train LLMs, without permisdion of the
88.
by lompad 2y ago
And within half an hour somebody invested in nvidia stock is going to swoop in and explain how they totally (trust me bro) made x thousand with an app written by llm. Every. Single. Time. Almost as if there was a financial incentive to do t
89.
by lompad 2y ago
This is an extremist position and disagrees with a century of science on the topic. That simplistic "weak-minded" indicates that you are just looking for a chance to make yourself feel/look better than others and are unable t
90.
by lompad 2y ago
What's with that idea that compulsions aren't real? They are just as real and difficult to drop as substance-based addictions, for a rather simple reason: The physical addiction is only a compounding factor, not the core difficult

More ›