Lifter

joined 2 years ago
[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The only evidence we have is that the VPN endpoint was blocked, like one of the people are saying. Anything further than that would be speculation.

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

How can you live with yourself?

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago

I think you can zoom in most of the pages with ctrl+ +

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 6 months ago (12 children)

Universal healthcare!

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago

It's not a whoosh if you mention the possibility of them trolling

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I don't know if you guys are on purpose but it's Fawkes. It would be amazing if three people really had different spellings of the same Guy..

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago

So there is still time...

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 months ago

Keep gooing!

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 months ago

It does though, their most profitable (as in profit margin) businesses areas are the subscription based services and charging.

https://www.energyandcapital.com/tesla-fsd/#%3A%7E%3Atext=This+would+result+in+approximately%2Ca+year+from+charging+services.

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Mimic, perhaps inspired but neural nets in machine learning doesn't work at all like real neural nets. They are just variables in a huge matrix multiplication.

FYI, I do have a Master's degree in Machine Learning.

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I disagree. Machines aren't "learning". You are anthropomorphising theem. They are storing the original works, just in a very convoluted way which makes it hard to know which works were used when generating a new one.

I tend to see it as they used "all the works" they trained on.

For the sake of argument, assume I could make an "AI" mesh together images but then only train it on two famous works of art. It would spit out a split screen of half the first one to the left and half of the other to the right. This would clearly be recognized as copying the original works but it would be a "new piece of art", right?

What if we add more images? At some point it would just be a jumbled mess, but still consist wholly of copies of original art. It would just be harder to demonstrate.

Morally - not practically - is the sophistication of the AI in jumbling the images together really what should constitute fair use?

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Many licences have different rules for redistribution, which I think is fair. The site is free to use but it's not fair to copy all the data and make a competitive site.

Of course wikipedia could make such a license. I don't think they have though.

How is the lack of infrastructure an argument for allowing something morally incorrect? We can take that argument to absurdum by saying there are more people with guns than there are cops - therefore killing must be morally correct.

view more: ‹ prev next ›