Not that I agree they’re conscious, but this is an incorrect and overly simplistic definition of a LLM. They are probabilistic in nature, yea, and they work on tokens, or fragments, of words. But it’s about as much of an oversimplification to say humans are just markov chains that make plausible sentences that can come after [the context] as it is to say modern GPTs are.
Grok is closed source, I believe, so it’s hard to say. But, ignoring unknown architecture or latent space details, this could be a lot of things. The way you seem to be using the term hallucination effectively applies to EVERY output of a GPT. They effectively reason probabilistically across a billion dimensioned space mapping language components, with various dimensions taking on various semantic values due to a sort of mathematical differentiation during training. This could be the result of influence from any number of things tbh.
Chris Jamroz is effectively the CEO and Edward J Wegel is the founder. Just some interesting public info i came across. Neat.
We have effectively always had an audit and accountability process for our agencies in the US, and I’d be willing to bet the same is true for you in Germany. The problem is that this is absolutely not that–it’s just raw oligarchic capture-- and the actual aforementioned historical processes are naturally slow, meticulous, complex, and not readily reported on because they provide little clickbait. If you haven’t already, I recommend you actually investigate into the internal review mechanisms that exist in your country.
I think this is a gross oversimplification of the issues, but that’s a big part of the problem. Currently, the problems facing both the DNC and the country are very complex and one very large and diverse side has to present ultimate complex solutions to complex problems to an electorate that collectively can barely tie its shoes, and the other just handwaves over this complexity, others a whole punch of folks, and says they’ll “fix” it by pushing the bad mean “others” out.
Government actually DID work for a huge swathe of people in subtle, often taken for granted ways. It had vast room for improvement, but nevertheless was better than the alternative of simply not existing. The VA is a good example of this. But when you try to explain that to folks, they just glaze over. Another example is I’ve had discussions with multiple people now who were convinced that Harris just “never even had any policy” despite this being objectively untrue and very easily refuted.
This is all to say, no, “people” don’t know or see shit. The average voters is wildly uninformed, uninformable, and cannot engage in anything beyond magical thinking. Long term solution is to make politics at the individual level more engaging with their day to day and increase general competence and access to true information. No idea what the short term solution is–as the saying goes, you can’t use reason to convince someone out of a stupid fucking opinion.
People who are arrested are either charged with a crime or are presenting an immediate and reasonable threat. None of these are the case here. This was absolutely a violation of her due process. Thats without even getting to the issue of her visa revocation.
This is an absurd take. Under this “logic” there is literally no way to be anti-genocide. If you are elected, you cannot be anti-genocide because of some convoluted imputed condoning of state violence, so that leaves it to violent revolutionary change to fix the state, which is intrinsically a testament to “state violence” of it succeeds. Your urge to be cynical and lazy has lead you into a nihilist paradox and serves no value to anyone, including yourself.
I grew up in Milwaukee before moving to Boston. No, Boston is not even remotely the most racist city in America.
Yea, she’s just a comms person with no actual competencies or practical function. That said, her office number is public info on CBP’s site.
Seems like the CBP staff involved in this very clearly illegal deportation should be named and shamed. Boston is not the city to be pulling this shit in.
I wonder if part of this is because, especially if you living memory of the preceding monarchical period, presumably the last authoritarian was the one who opened up government to democratic practices, meaning they very well might have been atypically benevolent. That said, this could be completely nonsense. Literally just an avoiding-work-thought.
Greenland is one of the only (the only?) largely indigenous governed country (ish) in the world and one of its official languages alongside Danish is Greenlandic, an inuit language. So, yea, for some shitty old white American dude to continue to demand annexing this country is some fucking wild bullshit.
Yes, this is what I said. Situations where a work can conceivably considered co-authored by a human, those components get copyright. However, whether that activit constitutes contribution and how is demarcated across the work is a case by case basis. This doesn’t mean any inpainting at all renders the whole work copyright protected–it means that it could in cases where it is so granular and directly corresponds to human decision making that it’s effectively digital painting. This is probably a higher bar than most expect but, as is not atypical with copyright, is a largely case by case quantitative/adjudicated vibes-based determination.
The second situation you quoted is also standard and effectively stands for the fact that an ordered compilation of individually copyrighted works may itself have its own copyright in the work as a whole. This is not new and is common sense when you consider the way large creative media projects work.
Also worth mentioning that none of this obviates the requirement that registrations reasonably identify and describe the AI generated components of the work (presumably to effectively disclaim those portions). It will be interesting to see a defense raised that the holder failed to do so and so committed a fraud on the Copyright Office and thus lost their copyright in the work as a whole (a possible penalty for committing fraud on the Office).
The CO didn’t say AI generated works were copyrightable. In fact, the second part of the report very much affirmed their earlier decisions that AI generated content is necessarily not protected under copyright. What you are probably referring to is the discussion the Office presented about joint works style pieces–that is, where a human performed additional creative contributions to the AI generated material. In that case, the portions such that they were generated by the human contributor are protected under copyright as expected. Further, they made very clear that what constitutes creative contribution and thus gets coverage is determined on a case by case basis. None of this is all that surprising, nor does it refute the rule that AI generated material, having been authored by something other than a human, is not afforded any copyright protection whatsoever.
They could also just…not invade other countries and return to their own?
For sure. I personally think our current IP laws are well equipped to handle AI generated content, even if there are many other situations where they require a significant overhaul. And the person you responded to is really only sort of maybe half correct. Those advocating for, e.g., there to be some sort of copyright infringement in training AI aren’t going to bat for current IP laws-- they’re advocating for altogether new IP laws effectively thar would effectively further assetize and allow even more rent seeking in intangibles. Artists would absolutely not come out ahead on this and it’s ludicrous to think so. Publishing platforms would make creators sign those rights away and large corporations would be the only ones financially capable of acting in this new IP landscape. The compromise also likely would be attaching a property right in the model outputs and so it would actually become far more practical to leverage AI generated material at commercial scale since the publisher could enforce IP rights on the product.
The real solution to this particular issue is require all models that out materials to the public at large be open source and all outputs distributed at large be marked as generated by AI and thus being effectively in the public domain.
AI art is not protected by copyright, yes. That isn’t a “should” but rather how it actually works in nearly all countries but a few, certainly including the US.
He was VP. His espoused policy was effectively supporting Harris’. If you look at his record in MN and actually listen to his statements, his native policy positions become pretty clear. I don’t know when your day was, but people have been as politically illiterate as you since the fucking oongaboonga times.
No, i think I’m primarily going to blame the people who voted for Trump for Trump being elected.
Even better, gorditas literally translate to little fat girls i believe (but maybe I’m wrong). Tbf, we have a processed sausage-alike that we call a hot dog so language and our perception of it is weird