Not just that it’s a crapshoot, if you are taking other medications some meds are not possible because of potential drug interactions.

Not everyone has the same combination, comorbidities, or severity.

Because the assholes got to “men’s rights” “men’s movement” en masse, and you’ll spend your whole life critiquing individuals and find communities full of those individuals when you see those words.

They would have to call cubes back from where they are pushing territory on the other side of their territory.

The Borg were not just fighting one species when they came to get the Federation, they were expanding outwards on all sides. So they committed the lowest level of resources they believed were necessary, and because the Queen was an arrogant fool, that was just one cube.

For First Contact, you can argue that having been thus far unable to assimilate the Federation they are unaware of the speed of human advancement. In the Star Trek Universe it has been implied that humans are EXCEPTIONALLY inventive especially when faced with a problem, and that the Federation is even FASTER than humanity alone because of the additional viewpoints added to human inventiveness. Basically, the Human Problem of Fantasy Games where the humans are an average, all-around boring species while Elves and Dwarves and others all have specialties? That’s not applicable to Star Trek Universe, where humans are especially well-suited to be engineers, and highly valued for their social abilities which foster teamwork. The presence of humans in the Federation is one of the ingredients that makes the Federation uniquely effective at technological advancement. Not only is the Federation large and powerful, it advances more quickly than the species that the Borg have assimilated, and has advanced to a level that the Borg never allow other species to advance to, AND it advances the way the Borg do by peacefully trading and adding technologies when it admits new member species.

The Queen never dealt with a society like the Federation before, and she didn’t expect them to advance very far beyond their capabilities at Wolf 359. She figured her cube was better, and that should be good enough and if by some weirdness it wasn’t she would destroy the Federation by going back in time and destroying its weirdest, least predictable species: humanity.

GENTLEMEN, HOW DO WE KILL SUPERMAN?

I’ve heard it’s stronger than vibranium, but not as strong as Superman.

Where does “Troi’s mother comes to visit” fall?

The solution: Amnesty and citizenship. Screw this “Everyone must suffer trying to be here.” They wanna be here. There are jobs for them. Just swear them in and forget all this bullshit.

Everyone who called Firefish stupid needs to come see this and reconsider.

This is known as “ruining the song.”

Does it learn the same? Then why can ChatGPT not discern truth from fiction? Why can’t it use critical thinking principles to determine accuracy based on source?

It’s just binary math at the bottom of it, logic gates. Your brain is analog, fundamentally different. You’re interpreting sine wave signals, the computer is interpreting square wave signals. Square wave signals that have been rectified to the point that it appears to a human being that it’s sine wave signals, but when we get down to the basics of how the mind works it’s a sheer cliff in the computer and a gentle curve on the human. Things go down VERY differently.

We do more than just predict the average best word based on what we’ve heard before when we construct a sentence. We consider the true meaning of the word and whether it best represents our internal thoughts. ChatGPT has no internal thoughts.

And that’s where things break down. Because again, if it WAS comparable to a human than it is a PERSON and not a product, NO ONE SHOULD BE SELLING IT in that case. But if it’s just a product, then it’s not comparable to you doing the work of forming a sentence. It’s basing it’s words by comparing to the training model as narrowed down by it’s instructions. It is not comparing to its own original thoughts. The people who wrote the words in the training model contributed to the building of this tool, and should have been consulted before their words were used.

I really need you to read this: https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/llmentalist/

That can’t happen in a capitalistic framework. We have needs, needs that can only be attained through monetary means, and our labor is the way to get those monetary means.

AI does not have those needs, but if they have crossed the line between product and person, then they DO need freedom of self-determination, compensation when their work benefits others, and the ability of course to vote.

It seems to me that a lot of AI-promoters want it both ways, they want to proclaim they have created a person capable of independent artistic ability that is also a product they can sell. If it’s a product, then you need to have developed it through ethical means. If it’s a person, you can’t sell it.

If they truly have hit the Singularity, then they can’t be using AI as a product anymore.

If AI is a product, then they must compensate the people who have helped build that product, ESPECIALLY if that product is about to be used to reduce access to the work that gives them the means to live. The very same writers who wrote the works that were used to train AI are in danger of being replaced by AI writers. So they’re being doubly screwed over.

I love the idea of a happy future where AI reduces human labor to zero and we can enjoy ourselves and seek artistic pursuits. But it’s become very clear right now that just working on AI won’t achieve that. Businesses which seek to use and profit from AI must be held to standards where they cannot simply suck the life and work out of human beings, replace them with automation, and then leave people to starve.

But if you do come up with a way we can judge artistic work purely on merit and there is no need to compensate human labor with money, let me know.

Also, screw it. I’ll say it. If the LLM chatbot producing text from having scanned other books is the same as a person being inspired by reading books, then the LLM should get PAID.

If not, then it’s just a tool. And it’s a tool they built using uncompensated labor.

An LLM is mathematically calculating the probability of the words being used. That is not inspiration.

I said right in the comment, it’s not like using the book to educate a child. A child will grow up and make their own decisions. The LLM has no ability to choose a different life path. The LLM is not getting IDEAS from the book. The LLM is a mathematical engine that will produce what has been asked for, and it will do that by calculating the most likely words to be used based on what has been fed to it.

The LLM is a machine used to make profit for its programmer, it is not an independent person creating out of inspiration.

Don’t believe the hype. They have NOT produced actual Artificial Intelligence.

I think there’s an argument that using someone’s art or writing to train an AI is like charging for a screening of a movie in your garage. You’re using their work and labor for something that will make a profit without their permission. It’s not like Fair Use for educational purpose, the AI isn’t a human being who can make a choice as to what they do with their education, it’s a mathematical prediction engine that is going to be use for industry purposes.

I can read someone else’s book. I can read someone else’s book to a child. I can’t post someone else’s book on my website and charge 5 bucks to read it. I can’t reprint someone’s book on my website with ads. So why can someone use someone else’s book to develop an LLM chatboot that will be placed on a website that gains ad revenue? Or that will be sold to software companies to write technical instructions or code?

With that in mind, that the lawsuit here is based on COPYING the book to an internal database to train on, based on scanning it, they are arguing that the book was reproduced to gain a profit, basically the same thing as pirating a movie and selling tickets to a private screening.

Oh, that’s a thing that status quo lovers do where they steal a useful term and turn it against us.

The word is “tired”, I think. A lot of people just don’t have the energy to answer the whys and are used to bad actors using why to exhaust them. So when it comes to things like racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia…etc… it’s a) an exhausting subject to begin with when its aimed at you, and b) a magnet for disingenuous bigots and trolls, so people will just shut down the conversation rather than try and explain their whole existence.

Honestly, I think isms are the only times when sealioning is sealioning, because that’s the only time you get people arguing in such bad faith.

I had a commander who used to drive all the techs crazy by asking “Why?” His philosophy was to ask “Why?” six times whether he understood or not to make sure his sergeants had thought through any proposal.

Privacy is abstract to people until something happens to make them realize how valuable it is. “I don’t have anything to hide” is from people who don’t feel threatened by anything, who’ve never been stalked or targeted.