Except that’s not even how most bus systems work because most of them are majority funded by taxes with fares originally meant to serve as a stopgap but then slowly converted into a profit engine (usually after privitization). Fares are a way to gatekeep a service which your taxes already pay for, which I would argue, is by itself a form of theft.

As an example check out the latest MTA report only 26% of funding comes from fares, and that ones a bit in the higher end from what I’ve seen (NYC public transit, picked as the example a it’s recently been in the news for issues with fare evasion)

All that aside, it’s also worth noting that fare increases are extremely unpopular and it’s not that easy to increase them without potential serious backlash (ie the mass protests in Chile a few years back that were in part set off by the fare hikes.)

From an article about a recent lawsuit

The App Store appeared to harvest information about every single thing you did in real time, including what you tapped on, which apps you search for, what ads you saw, and how long you looked at a given app and how you found it. The app sent details about you and your device as well, including ID numbers, what kind of phone you’re using, your screen resolution, your keyboard languages, how you’re connected to the internet—notably, the kind of information commonly used for device fingerprinting.

Notably, knowing keyboard language and monitoring tap locations allows for reconstruction of text the user types (as detailed in this article

I do think you are correct that Apple probably isn’t actively keylogging every iOS device (just because there’s easier ways with less legal concerns that ultimately get the same outcomes), but it’s not like there’s “no evidence”.

If you build a base on/near a bunch of ore nodes and dedicate it entirely to mining your pals will mine it for you and it respawns daily (passive ore generation ftw!!!)

Another factor was the PPP and other “totally not bailouts” that were part of the COVID relief spending.

Of the roughly $800 billion dollars from PPP which was provided as uncollateralized, low-interest loans 66-77% went directly to companies and ~92% of those loans were completely forgiven.. In other words an ~5-600M bailout predicated on keeping positions open long enough to maintain plausible deniability that is what the goal was.

“All models are wrong, some are useful.”

It’s not, the underlying data is still just as biased. Taking a bunch of white people and saying they are “ethnically ambiguous” is just statistical blackface.

✓ Open source generative AI

✓ Disney model

✓ Federated

Mock away :D

No they don’t… You do and the media is engaged in a terrifying amount of manufactured consent, but the raw data from those same polls does not agree with that claim.

Ignoring the sampling methods used, lack of transparency on filters and other methodology, clearly biased questions, etc. The latest CBS news poll on the topic lists:

• 52% believe less weapons and supplies should be sent to Israel.

• 76% believe more humanitarian aid should be sent to Israel.

• 57% believe more humanitarian aid should be sent to Gaza.

• 56% disapprove of how the situation with Russia and Ukraine is being handled. (Though there isn’t much of a breakdown on the “how is it being mishandled…”)

A few things that should be explicitly pointed out as this is a bad poll, but it would appear the inherit bias is trying to agree with you, so the margin of error means the “true feelings of Americans” is even further in contradiction to your statement.

• Note how Isreal is kept consistent without a single reference to Netanyahu/Israeli government compared to the constant switching back and forth between “Hamas” and “Palestinian people”

• poll is 63% white, 62% of that group has “no degree”, 33% aged between 45-64 (amongst 4 categories).

So even when polling predominantly uneducated* white baby boomers who are the exact demographic that agrees the most with you, and doing the typical statistical magic the numbers still cannot be finagled in such a way as to make your statement true.

• it should be said that “uneducated” doesn’t necessarily mean ‘uninformed, stupid, etc.’ However, in this context it means they are deliberately polling non-experts who’s primary source of information is CBS/Paramount itself (or other closely related corporations) in order to manufacture consent.

A couple I don’t see listed:

• BattleBlock theater
• Subnautica
• Children of Morta
• Stardew Valley
• Crypt of the Necrodancer

Yep! It’s known as “The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect”.

I’d recommend at least reading a Wikipedia article or 2 about the role of police in society and the state and coming back when you’re a little more informed on their role in society.

People are capable of more than 1 emotion at a time and that doesn’t make any other emotions invalid and it certainly doesn’t make any of the other possible ones people may feel or express “immoral”.

Yes, someone is dead. They were flawed, but so is everyone and their passing is a tragedy to those close to them. Sadness, mourning, and empathy for those who will be most affected by his passing is a valid emotion.

Ryan actively chose a profession dedicated to inflicting violence upon those around them including the deaths of many others. Relief that he is no longer able to cause harm is a valid emotion.

Ryan was unable to stop causing harm to others on his own volition. He likely did it with the best of intentions, but through a steady diet of misinformation and lies he was conned into acting as a violent enforcer of capital. Frustration that this is what it took to prevent him from inflicting further harm is a valid emotion.

The empathy you are demanding with “it’s bad when people get killed” is the same moralistic argument that “it’s good when killing is avoided”. Celebration that Ryan will no longer be causing the deaths of others is a valid (and morally equivalent) emotion.

Etc.

In short: It’s a good platitude, but it’s a poor moralistic argument, and is a narrow-minded viewpoint. Lemmy isn’t the problem, your lack of empathy for those outside of Ryan’s direct social circle is.

The academic name for the field is quite literally “machine learning”.

You are incorrect that these systems are unable to create/be creative, you are correct that creativity != consciousness (which is an extremely poorly defined concept to begin with …) and you are partially correct about how the underlying statistical models work. What you’re missing is that by defining a probabilistic model to objects you can “think”/“be creative” because these models dont need to see a “blue hexagonal strawberry” in order to think about what that may mean and imagine what it looks like.

I would recommend this paper for further reading into the topic and would like to point out you are again correct that existing AI systems are far from human levels on the proposed challenges, but inarguably able to “think”, “learn” and “creatively” solve those proposed problems.

The person you’re responding to isn’t trying to pick a fight they’re trying to help show you that you have bought whole cloth into a logical fallacy and are being extremely defensive about it to your own detriment.

That’s nothing to be embarrassed about, the “LLMs can’t be creative because nothing is original, so everything is a derivative work” is a dedicated propaganda effort to further expand copyright and capital consolidation.

I partially agree with you, but I think you’re missing the end goal of Facebook et al.

As HughJanus pointed out it’s not really any different than a person reading a book and by that reasoning using copyrighted material to train models like these falls well within the existing framework of “fair use”.

However, that depends entirely on “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” I agree completely with you that OpenAI’s products/business (the most blatant violator) does easily violate “fair use” due to that clause. However they’re doing it, at least partially, to “force the issue” on the open question of “how much can public information be privatized?” with the goal of further privatizing and increasing commercial applications of raw data.

As you pointed out LLMs can only create facsimiles and not the original work, and by that logic they can’t exactly replicate the inputs either.

No I don’t think artists can claim that they own any and all “cheap facsimiles” of their works, but by that same reasoning none of these models produced should be allowed to be the enforceable property of any individual/company either.

For further reading check out:

• Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation on why “thumbnails” (and by extension LLMs, “eigen-images”, etc.) are inherently transformatve and constitute fair use.
• Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films for the negative impacts that ruling has had and how it still doesn’t protect the artists from their stuff being used for training and LLM.
• “Variational auto-encoders” for understanding on how the latest LLMs actually do achieve a significant amount of “originality” and I would argue are able to be minimally creative.