I just found out about this stuff... This is a fun brain teaser. Nearly got it, maybe if I had just one more chance!
Weekly Quordle Challenge 57
8️⃣🟥
6️⃣5️⃣
m-w.com/games/quordle/
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜ 🟨⬜⬜🟩⬜
⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟨🟩⬜ ⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬜🟨🟨🟩🟨
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜ ⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜ ⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜🟨🟩🟨🟩 🟩⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
But you are talking about a completely different thing. Here's what it boils down to:
Obviously, we prefer to exhaust other options first
Does it look like that? Not really... Not when people are cheering for some asshole to be assassinated. This is not about the value of one life, this is not about the use of violence of armed forces to try and save others, this is not about the lives that trump would destroy. This is about people cheering for a murder, this is about a public figure inciting violence publicly... Did you notice the reaction of someone like Biden or Sanders (the two examples I know of, surely there are others)? immediately rejecting the actions of a violent man that decided to open fire against a big amount of people, it's irrelevant who he was aiming for. The only solution for anyone talking in this thread is killing trump, instead of voting the other (albeit very imperfect) party. It's still months before the election and everyone is acting like trump has won already and the only solution is killing him. Wtf.
I guess this thread and conversation has shown me why the US has such a gun problem. Why the police is absurdly violent against anyone they consider a threat. Why someone would resort to shooting a bunch of people if they've been bullied for years or whatever and feel threatened. Fucking sad...
All of this is not about me wanting trump alive and well, I don't want the orange turd around, I'd hope preferably that he rots in prison though and that he has very "nice" cellmate with him, but if he's gone from the surface of the earth all the better for the rest of us. That is not the same as inciting for violence, or approving the assassination attempt that has killed someone else.
And your proposal is that justice should prevail by a public mass shooting to kill the orange turd?
So your thinking is that because trump tried to end democracy, now you have the right to kill him?
The only way to defend yourself is with guns and killing those who attack you? I wonder what group of people keep proposing that...
People like you, already defeated months before the election, saying that voting doesn't matter, have a lot to do with the end of democracy. Go vote, make it matter.
Shit's real fucked, you have in the states a candidate for presidency instead of being in prison like he should. And the problem is that no one has killed him yet? No wonder that justice won't work...
Either you are just trying to help the orange shit posting this kind of defeatist comment on purpose or you are just as bad as a republican that keeps saying those who oppose him should be killed.
Don't use fallacies to defend violence. Killing trump is not the only way to avoid that from happening. Becoming a terrorist and promoting violence against a political group contrary to your political opinion is not OK no matter how dangerous that group is. You are using the same discussion techniques that fucking maga asshats use. Seriously you don't see the issue on the way you are defending the idea that assassinating a political opponent is the only way to defeat that opponent?
You are defending the republican gun nutjob that went to shoot trump and accidentally killed someone else? You are saying his decision making was the kind of behaviour to glorify? The same kind of nut job that will happily join in the death squads you talk about? What the fuck, how does your brain work? How can you not see the hypocrisy of what you are saying...
Of course that's assuming a sincere take and not just some piece of shit bot or account made to increase violence hatred and division.
Sincerely I am baffled at the take most comments have on this... Does this mean that because trump is a fucking fascist piece of shit that calls for violence against anyone he doesn't like we have the right to call for violence against him? Just because trump is a disgusting waste of biological matter that rapes kids do we have the right to rape his kids? What the fuck is with all these comments calling coward to jack black for pointing out how out of place is such a thing to say... It's a joke that I could do, in a group of close friends, that I know how they will take it. I'm pretty sure jack black would have found it funny in private. But in the middle of a show? Do we really need to remind people that calling for violence is not OK? Yeah we could take his comment as a joke... But what if some people in the audience are unhinged enough to take it seriously? The comment was definitely out of place. Freedom of speech has limits, and his comment is very much crossing the limit.
Look, I'm not going to lie, if I hear trump drops dead randomly tomorrow I wouldn't feel particularly sad (or at all) but I wouldn't ask for him to be assassinated or call for terrorism against republicans no matter how wrong I think they are and how dangerous they can be. What the fuck... there's so many people here hoping for a fucking asshole to be assassinated it's kinda scary even. That's not the solution against trump or republicans...
Well damn, thank you so much for the answer. That has gone well and beyond what I'd have called a great answer.
First of all I just wanted to acknowledge the time you put into it, I just read it and in order to make a meaningful answer for discussion I probably need to read your comment a couple more times, and consider my own perspective on those topics, and also study a few drops of information you gave where sincerely you lost me :D (being a neutral monist, and about Searle and such, I need to study a bit that area). So, I want to give an adequate response to you as well and I'll need some time for that, but before anything, thanks for the conversation, I didn't want to wait to say that later on.
Also, worth mentioning that you did hit the nail in the head when you summed up all my rambling into a coherent one question/topic. I keep debating myself about how I can support creators while also appreciating the usefulness of a tool such as LLMs that can help me create things myself that I couldn't before. There has to be a balance somewhere there... (Fellow programmer brain here trying to solve things like if you are debugging software, no doubt the wrong perspective for such a complex context).
UBI is definitely a goal to be achieved that could help in many ways, just like a huge reform of copyright would also be necessary to remove all the predators that are already abusing creators by taking their legal rights on the content created.
The point you make of anthropomorphizing LLMs is absolutely a key point, in fact I avoid all I can mentioning AI because I believe it muddles the waters so much more than it should (but it's a great way of selling the software). For me it goes the other way actually and I wonder how different we are from an LLM (oversimplifying much...) in the methods we apply to create something and where's the line of being creative vs depending on previous things experienced and basing our creation in previous things.
Anyway, that starts getting a bit too philosophical, which can be fun but less practical. Respecting your other comment, I do indeed follow Doctorow, it's fascinating how much he writes, and how clear he can expose ideas. It's tough to catch up with him at times with so much content. I also got his books in the last humble bundle, so happy to buy books without DRM... I'll try to think a bit more these days on these topics and see what I can come up with. I don't want to continue rambling like a madman without setting some order to my own thoughts first. Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation.
I would love to hear your opinion on something I keep thinking about. There's the whole idea that these LLMs are training on "available" data all over the internet, and then anyone can use the LLM and create something that could resemble the work of someone else. Then there's the people calling it theft (in my opinion wrong from any possible angle of consideration) and those calling it fair use (I kinda lean more on this side). But then we have the side of compensation for authors and such, which would be great if some form for it would be found. Any one person can learn about the style of an author and imitate it without really copying the same piece of art. That person cannot be sued for stealing "style", and it feels like the LLM is basically in the same area of creating content. And authors have never been compensated for someone imitating them.
So... What would make the case of LLMs different? What are good points against it that don't end up falling into the "stealing content" discussion? How to guarantee authors are compensated for their works? How can we guarantee that a company doesn't order a book (or a reading with your voice in the case of voice actors, or pictures and drawings, ...) and then reproduces the same content without you not having to pay you? How can we differentiate between a synthetic voice trained with thousand of voices but not the voice of person A but creates a voice similar to that of A against the case of a company "stealing" the voice of A directly? I feel there's a lot of nuances here and don't know what or how to cover all of it easily and most discussion I read are just "steal vs fair use" only.
Can this only end properly with a full reform of copyright? It's not like authors are nowadays very well protected either. Publishers basically take their creation to be used and abused without the author having any say in it (like in the case of spot if unpublished a artists relationship and payment agreements).
I just wanted to say, it's refreshing to read a well argumented comment such as this one. It's good to see every once in a while there are still some people thinking things through without falling for automatic hatred to either side of a discussion.
But the reason the planet burns is because of how we generate the energy, not because of using energy. I'm not defending all these fucked up greedy corporations and their use of AI, machine learning, LLMs or whatever crap they are trying to get us to use want or not, but our real problem is based on energy generation, not consumption.
But is it the tool that has the negative impact or is it the corporations that use the tool with a negative impact? I think it is an important distinction, even more so when this kind of blaming the AI stuff sounds a lot to distraction techniques, "no don't look at what has caused global warming for the last century, look at this tech that exploded over the last year and is consuming crazy amounts of energy". And saying that, I want to make sure its clear, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be handled, discussed or criticised (the use of AI I mean), as long as we don't fall into irrational blaming of a tool that has no such issue.
I didn't know about the mod stuff, but also not sure why you mention it, am I going to find myself mod of some weird shit now? X)
But then the problem is how google uses AI, not AI itself. I can have an LLM running locally not consuming crazy amounts of energy for my own purposes.
So blaming AI is absurd, we should blame OpenAI, Google, Amazon... This whole hatred for AI is absurd when it's not the real source of the problem. We should concentrate on blaming and ideally punishing companies for this kind of use (abuse more like) of energy. Energy usage also is not an issue in itself, as long as we use adequate energy sources. If companies start deploying huge solar panel fields on top of their buildings and parkings and whatnot to cover part of the energy use we could all end up better than before even.
It's not me? Ah good, so I don't have to quit being Shell's CEO :)