slg

25 ms·

541.
by slg 1y ago
>societal desire that generating IP continue to be a viable economic work product It is strange that you think the law is settled when I don't think even this "societal desire" is completely settled just yet.
542.
by slg 1y ago
>This was never about "protecting children." I feel like this narrative is counterproductive. Sure, it is true that some people advocating for this are doing it out of ulterior motives, but it certainly isn't true for all
543.
by slg 1y ago
This quote is perfectly constructed to underline the hypocrisy considering this case is about pirating educational material. If pirating information is allowed when that neural network you are training is some LLM, why shouldn't it be
544.
by slg 1y ago
I'm incredibly skeptical of the idea that Trump stole the election, especially when stuff like that video is used as evidence. Trump is clearly referring to the 2020 election. He is saying that if that election wasn't "rigg
545.
by slg 1y ago
>Your analogy contains a category mistake Yes, that was exactly the point of my question. I was subtly accusing you of the same thing you are now overtly accusing me of doing. I was showing that we shouldn't look at everything thr
546.
by slg 1y ago
I understand this topic brings out the worst in some users, but the governing of AI bias is an important issue that is on topic for HN. I don't know what the purpose of this site is if topics like this always get flagged killed within
547.
by slg 1y ago
>The outcome of this one event simply doesn't imply anything about the correctness of AlotOfReading's model. How many times would you have to burn your hand on a hot stove before you can conclude that touching it will result in
548.
by slg 1y ago
Yes, that was the point being made. Immediately believing the authenticity of this video was not just wrong, but also a mistake. Anyone who believed it initially should take this as a lesson to learn to recalibrate their levels of naïveté
549.
by slg 1y ago
>I don't know what you want from me. All I want from you is to... >update my understanding and try not to make the same mistakes going forward. The first step in that process is examining your prior mistakes so you know what not
550.
by slg 1y ago
>Those priors were obviously wrong. You're doing it again here with the passive voice. You weren't wrong, it was "Ockham's razor" and "those priors" that were wrong. >Do you think I shouldn't u
551.
by slg 1y ago
>Pretty clear this was faked Yet you were saying the opposite in that previous thread. >I've implemented limp modes before and the easiest way is to prevent acceleration to over a certain speed without enabling regen. If you&#x27
552.
by slg 1y ago
"The lie has value because it feels true" is one of the more disturbing trends I have seen gain traction on the internet in recent years. People are now unironically turning themselves in the Stephen Colbert character from The Co
553.
by slg 1y ago
It if funny to phrase it like that as if you weren't one of the people in that thread arguing against those skeptical people pointing out issues with the accusations. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44859991
554.
by slg 1y ago
>Because it is on-brand with Musk behavior. It really isn't. I said as much in the previous thread, but the part that elevates this past the typical petty Musk behavior was the accusation that the car was bricked while it was being
555.
by slg 1y ago
Book publishers directly funding the reviews is a conflict of interest. Part of the problem with the ongoing death of professional criticism is that you could reasonably expect a professional critic and their employer to both have some sort
556.
by slg 1y ago
There is a huge difference between rolling back software while disabling some ports compared to completely bricking a vehicle as it is being driven. We can recognize they are both wrong and abuses without pretending they are equivalent act
557.
by slg 1y ago
If your entire argument rests around the implied inconsistency of a rapper's "vibe", it doesn't sound like you have a very strong argument. Odds are we'll eventually know the truth, but early indications are that I
558.
by slg 1y ago
And remotely disabling a moving vehicle is so commonplace at this company that even the IP lawyers have direct access to that functionality without any oversight? This potential lawsuit is getting easier and easier.
559.
by slg 1y ago
This doesn't have to be some elaborate plan. What I described could be accomplished in an afternoon, maybe after the initial pro-Tesla release didn't get enough attention.
560.
by slg 1y ago
And remotely disabling a vehicle as it is being driven seems like a straightforward lawsuit if this whole thing is true. Who is more likely to make a stupid legal mistake that opens themselves up to a lawsuit, the random musician or the le
561.
by slg 1y ago
A rapper who wanted to promote their video created a fake C&D and corresponding warning video, uploaded the video to Youtube, parked his car on the highway, and played the video on the screen all as a "prank" to promote said v
562.
by slg 1y ago
What happened to those two distinct questions? What point were you trying to make in your previous comment? I specifically asked for clarification on your comment and instead of answering that direct question, you went right back to debat
563.
by slg 1y ago
>I think you are getting so much pushback because you are mixing both questions, using after the fact "what ifs" to say what people should have done at the time What have I mentioned here that couldn't have been considered
564.
by slg 1y ago
I can't tell if this is a sarcastic comment. Not only is "domestic" a relatively simple word with a straightforward definition, but also the point of the original comment that "consumers will end up paying the tariffs&qu
565.
by slg 1y ago
The full AI summary from DuckDuckGo for "How do tariffs work?" >Tariffs are taxes imposed by a government on imported goods, making them more expensive to encourage consumers to buy domestic products instead. The costs of these
566.
by slg 1y ago
>To show their destructive power. That one plane could do as much damage as dozens / hundreds. >What would blowing up water show? What would blowing up an empty field show? What would blowing up an already-flatten city (like Toky
567.
by slg 1y ago
You are not engaging with the heart of the question. If "The number of people killed (civilian and military) was irrelevant", why do you think it was necessary that they were killed? If "The difference was in the psychologic
568.
by slg 1y ago
This is the type of argument that immediately folds in on itself. If they didn’t care about civilian losses, why do people believe the civilian losses in these bombings were necessary? Why is it assumed that the US needed to kill civilians
569.
by slg 1y ago
Yes, and millions of people survived those bombings. If the only goal was "maximum concrete, visceral impact", a prior bombing would not have eliminated Tokyo from the list of targets for the nuclear bomb which goes to show that
570.
by slg 1y ago
Yes, I know this and it was part of my point. If "cultural significance" was part of determining bombing sites, then we know "maximum concrete, visceral impact" was clearly not the only goal.

More ›