I read the article and his issue with women is that they can’t be trusted and that their emotions change. This man is going to be completely unable to deal with children. Empathy and compassion and soothing are skills you hone in adult relationships and can use when you’re raising kids. There’s no way this guy deals with a kids outbursts or problems in a healthy way.
I don’t think training on all public information is super ethical regardless, but to the extent that others may support it, I understand that SO may be seen as fair game. To my knowledge though, all the big AIs I’m aware of have been trained on GitHub regardless of any individual projects license.
It’s not about proving individual code theft, it’s about recognizing the model itself is built from theft. Just because an AI image output might not resemble any preexisting piece of art doesn’t mean it isn’t based on theft. Can I ask what you used that was trained on just a projects documentation? Considering the amount of data usually needed for coherent output, I would be surprised if it did not need some additional data.
I’m under the impression it’s mostly just the one movie Kpop demon hunters. There’s a singalong and maybe a making of, but I’m pretty sure it’s not yet a franchise with spinoffs etc. Just the one movie should be all that’s needed. It’s pretty good for what it is in my opinion.
If you acknowledge the problem with theft from artists, do you not acknowledge there’s a problem with theft from coders? Code intended to be fully open source with licenses requiring derivatives to be open source is now being served up for closed source uses at the press of a button with no acknowledgement.
For what it’s worth, I think AI would be much better in a post scarcity moneyless society, but so long as people need to be paid for their work I find it hard to use ethically. The time it might take individuals to do the things offloaded to AI might mean a company would need to hire an additional person if they were not using AI. If AI were not trained unethically then I’d view it as a productivity tool and so be it, but because it has stolen for its training data it’s hard for me to view it as a neutral tool.
Not everyone is eligible for subsidies. My understanding is that they are basically federal assistance for low income families. Single people making more than 62,600 (which is 4 times the poverty level) for example will not be eligible for any assistance and their premiums have potentially risen over 25% just this year. That’s a lot of money, even for someone not on the poverty line.
I wonder if open enrollment extension will allow people to change plans. If someone could only afford a catastrophic plan without aid, will they be able to change to a better plan with aid? I have not seen articles mention open enrollment extension, but I’m glad to hear it’s being discussed. Obviously that doesn’t help the people who need healthcare today, but it at least is something.
I hate that articles don’t seem to mention that:
So healthcare is more expensive for everyone now and the people who were eligible for these subsidies may never see them because they don’t have healthcare anymore. This is disgraceful.
I don’t presume to know what was on the card, but the cry comment was in reference to an anecdote shared elsewhere in the comments that I thought was in the thread with you. My apologies for that confusion. Overall, I am pretty sure if the kid was exhibiting signs of autism that’s probably something you call the parents about and not just note on the report card, whereas just being a prick, which plenty of kids are, is not really parent teacher conference worthy, but still worth mentioning somewhere. Either way, I hope the kid gets assistance if he needs it.
Based on the other comments, some DMs seem to have an issue with that. Did they give a reason? I am extremely confused because I’m pretty sure that’s not just the archetype, but also just RAW for rogue. Is there some ambiguity in the wording of the class that I’m just missing?
I don’t know the person you were picturing, but me and at least a handful of other people were not talking about autistic people who happen to be nerdy. In my opinion, regularly making people cry in a workplace setting is lacking social skills. Based on just the OP, I imagine that teacher is not sending this home because the son is exhibiting signs of autism, he’s probably being a prick, which I’d say most kids are by default, but it’s a parents job to help them mature out of that phase. I generally have not experienced any issues working with people on the spectrum, certainly none that would elicit tears, which I think is an ok proxy for some social skills. Obviously, we can have just been thinking of different people, but I have not had many issues on Lemmy and I didn’t want people to come away with the impression that Lemmy is 2/3rds hostile or has issues communicating. Most people are pretty nice. Someone even gave me a soup recipe!
I imagine that’s a joke, but that’s being overly gracious to lemmys collective intellect and insulting to lemmys collective interpersonal skills. Most people I interact with on Lemmy are nice, if not at least cordial, and I don’t think being tech savvy equates to the kind of skill I’m attributing to that guy. Unfortunately, knowing what Linux is doesn’t actually make you intelligent, despite what even I sometimes like to believe.
Glad to hear that hasn’t been your experience. I’ve been in both now, but I’ve seen people I wouldn’t spit at if on fire get funding or positions because of the work they produce. A guy known for making grad students cry has a line out the door because people want to be associated with him. He’s got the funding and pull to make things happen because he’s good at what he does, despite being an impossible prick. I think part of it is that there are very few people of the caliber that people will excuse that behavior from. Not every smart person with a bad attitude gets a pass, but in my experience, there’s a threshold past which people will excuse a lot. I think there’s a similar thing with money. Not every millionaire can get what they want, but at a certain point of wealth they just can. I totally understand if that’s not a universal experience. I was just offering my perspective.
Yea, that’s completely valid. I imagine personal experience affects this a lot, but I’m glad to see people’s experiences have been contrary to what I imagine this woman has likely encountered. Not that anything excuses letting your child’s emotional and interpersonal development languish. She’s a terrible influence, regardless of if she was correct.
My perception might be tainted by personal experience. If you’re good at math and easy to work with, you’re golden, but between ok at math/easy to work with and great at math/terrible to work with, in my experience the former is let go before the latter. To a certain extent it makes sense, wether it’s publish or perish in academia or maximizing profit in the corporate world, you end up prioritizing the “best” and brightest.
That’s does kind of prove her point. That guy still has a job and likely would not have that job if he were just ok at math. She’s not wrong, but hopefully society moves away from that culture and then that guy will have to either adjust or be left behind.
I don’t know her particular situation, but if she needed “non-emergency” medical care, it’s possible it’s only covered in the state. I don’t know why she went in or disclosed, but if she went in for something non life threatening it’s possible it’d be out of pocket anywhere else.
Presumably she works in tech, but it’s very strange to see that kind of interaction. I don’t know why anyone would type in all caps or use multiple question marks regardless of if they’re talking to AI, a simple bot, or a real person. Maybe a “help” or “options” but I can’t imagine thinking an all caps hello would help in this situation.
Why did you comment twice? I already explained that the person you responded to is not asking anyone to care. They are agreeing that Americans knew what they were doing.
They are not expecting sympathy though.
Someone said “I have very little sympathy for America” and they replied that we don’t deserve it. They agreed.
I’m pretty sure they mean we don’t deserve the sympathy. If you take into account their whole comment, it seems like they are saying sympathy is undeserved because people knew what they were getting.
The link says it was over a fort having been seized. Though I’m not pro war, that seems like a pretty standard reason to go to war. It says it was not actually over a bucket.