Pretty sure the entire reply is supposed to be satirising the dumb ass linked in culture, I very much doubt aynthing in the reply is genuined.

What a dumb ass argument. Accordings to Al Quadas rules of engagement, the twin towers were a legitimate military target.

You don’t just get to decide yourself what counts at legitimate target, that’s not how any of this works.

Yes you can. And yet I bet you’ve ordered pre made food before, or food delivery.

You’ve probably bought plenty of things you could’ve done yourself for cheaper. You’ve probably hired handymen to do things like install washing machines, or movers to transport your stuff, or painters or roofers or cleaners. All of those things are cheaper to do yourself. Do you portray people paying for those things as idiots in memes as well ?

Convenience has value, and it’s not weird, or inconsistent or stupid for people to be willing to pay a premium on the convenience of someone else doing things, even if you could do them yourself. Especially because a large convenience factor is that if someone else does it, someone else is responsible for fixing it if it goes wrong.

Also, if something isn’t working, you can RMA the whole machine. If you build a PC yourself, and it’s not working, it then becomes your job to troubleshoot and figure out exactly which component is causing the issue, so you can then RMA just that.

If you gave your AI permission to run console commands without check or verification, then you did in fact give it permission to delete everything.

In the grammar test, Timmy, where Tommy had had ‘had had’ had had ‘had’. ‘Had had’ had had the teachers approval and was correct.

is a semantically and syntactically entirely correct and logical sentence.

That is enormously ironic, since I literally never claimed you said anything except for what you did: Namely, that synthetic data is enough to train models.

According to you, they should be able to just generate synthetic training data purely with the previous model, and then use that to train the next generation.

LIterally, the very next sentence starts with the words “Then why”, which clearly and explicitly means I’m no longer indirectly quoting you Everything else in my comment is quite explicitly my own thoughts on the matter, and why I disagree with that statment, so in actual fact, you’re the one making up shit I never said.

If the model collapse theory weren’t true, then why do LLMs need to scrape so much data from the internet for training ?

According to you, they should be able to just generate synthetic training data purely with the previous model, and then use that to train the next generation.

So why is there even a need for human input at all then ? Why are all LLM companies fighting tooth and nail against their data scraping being restricted, if real human data is in fact so unnecessary for model training, and they could just generate their own synthetic training data instead ?

You can stop models from deteriorating without new data, and you can even train them with synthetic data, but that still requires the synthetic data to either be modelled, or filtered by humans to ensure its quality. If you just take a million random chatGPT outputs, with no human filtering whatsoever, and use those to retrain the chatGPT model, and then repeat that over and over again, eventually the model will turn to shit. Each iteration some of the random tweaks chatGPT makes to their output are going to produce some low quality outputs, which are now presented to the new training model as a target to achieve, so the new model learns that the quality of this type of bad output is actually higher, which makes it more likely for it to reappear in the next set of synthetic data.

And if you turn of the random tweaks, the model may not deteriorate, but it also won’t improve, because effectively no new data is being generated.

What the hell even is the point mandating a back up alarm for self driving cars ? Backup alarms literally only exist because visibility to the rear is worse, and to warn pedestrians that a vehicle nearby is moving with very poor to no visibility, but that only applies to human operated vehicles. Autonomous vehicles use 360° sensors, they can “see” just as well in reverse as in forward. Be that good or bad, it’s equal in every direction, so mandating an alarm just for reverse seems enormously pointless. Especially since the cars tend to be slower in reverse, so if anything it’s less necessary then, vs. when they’re moving forward.

The line, imo, is: are you creating it yourself, and just using AI to help you make it faster/more convenient, or is AI the primary thing that is creating your content in the first place.

Using AI for convenience is absolutely valid imo, I routinely use chatGPT to do things like debugging code I wrote, or rewriting data sets in different formats, instead of doing to by hand, or using it for more complex search and replace jobs, if I can’t be fucked to figure out a regex to cover it.

For these kind of jobs, I think AI is a great tool.

More simply said, I personally generally use AI for small subtasks that I am entirely capable of doing myself, but are annoying/boring/repetitive/time consuming to do by hand.

Ticket Master is a massive monopoly in the US, and has exclusivity contracts with most of the popular concert venues, meaning if you want to perform anywhere of even mediocre popularity/size, you have literally no choice as an artist.

If “everyone will be using AI”, AI will turn to shit.

They can’t create originality, they’re only recycling and recontextualising existing information. But if you recycle and recontextualise the same information over and over again, it keeps degrading more and more.

It’s ironic that the very people who advocate for AI everywhere, fail to realise just how dependent the quality of AI content is on having real, human generated content to input to train the model.

Not to necessarily defend the idea in the article, but that comment screams that you just read the headline and not the article.

If you had read the article, you would know that the author doesn’t want to get rid of routable addresses, they want to replace the current system of IP address assignments with an automated cryptographic address system, allowing network size to rapidly increase, and self organise without reliance on a central address authority. So your analogy of having no address at all is massive misrepresentation of the authors idea.

Wildly misrepresentating ideas is never good. Even if you dislike it, by wildly misrepresentating the idea, it just discredits your own stance, because it’s (seemingly) based on falsehoods.

Pretending like the author just wants to just abolish all types of routing addresses is dishonest.

If you’re this bent on defending this mysoginstic and sexist crap, then you’re a sexist mysoginst not worth talking too. Enjoy being blocked.

Yes. And the fathers are equally capable of saying no. And the men themselves are equally capable of not being cunts.

There’s 3 people involved here, 2 of which are men, and this guy specifically singles out the the one woman, and blames her. That’s sexist and mysoginstic.

“When women are bad, it’s their fault. When men are bad, it’s their mother’s fault” is an objectively sexist and shitty stance to have.

If you wanna blame the parents, blame BOTH. Singling out the mother is mysoginstic.

Those men have fathers too, and yet you specifically blame the mothers. That’s misogyny.

You do realise that reproduction involves more than just the mother, right ?

Imagine being so sexist that you even blame women for a group men of being cunts.

Way to demonstrate the emotional maturity of a 5 year old.

Seatbelt sensors, automatic brakes and back up cameras are not annoyances dude. They LITERALLY fucking save lives.

Reverse roll overs are on of the most common types fatal car-pedestrian accidents involving children, and they can be entirely avoided by having rear cameras, and or/lidar with auto braking.

Driving a car is incredibly fucking dangerous. In fact, for the average person, driving a car is likely one of the most dangerous and risky single actions they are ever going to take in their lives. And it’s concerning that you seem to think it’s like riding a bike, and the safety features are overkill.