kava @ kava @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,152

Joined

2 yr. ago

I agree with you. What I'm saying is that perhaps the law can differentiate between "not open source" "partially open source" and "fully open source"

right now it's just the binary yes/no. which again determines whether or not millions of people would have access to something that could be useful to them

i'm not saying change the definition of open source. i'm saying for legal purposes, in the EU, there should be some clarification in the law. if there is a financial benefit to having an open source product available then there should be something for having a partially open source product available

especially a product that is as open source as it could possible legally be without violating copyright

Yes, but that model would never compete with the models that use copyrighted data.

There is a unfathomably large ocean of copyrighted data that goes into the modern LLMs. From scraping the internet to transcripts of movies and TV shows to tens of thousands of novels, etc.

That's the reason they are useful. If it weren't for that data, it would be a novelty.

So do we want public access to AI or not? How do we wanna do it? Zuck's quote from article "our legal framework isn't equipped for this new generation of AI" I think has truth to it

I mean unless they start enforcing state sanctioned rape women have a choice of whether or not to have sex. I get your point though.

Iirc department of education said something like "young women are supposed to start families not go to college"

Maybe it was someone else but it goes to show how insane the federal government has become

This is essentially what Llama does, no? The reason they are attempting a clarification is because they would be subject to different regulations depending on whether or not it's open source.

If they open source everything they legally can, then do they qualify as "open source" for legal purposes? The difference can be tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars in the EU according to Meta.

So a clarification on this issue, I think, is not asking for so much. Hate Facebook as much as the next guy but this is like 5 minute hate material

when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source? it's a valid question.

one thing is the model or the code that trains the AI. the other thing is the data that produces the weights which determines how the model predicts

of course, the obligatory fuck meta and the zuck and all that but there is a legal conundrum here we need to address that don't fit into our current IP legal framework

my preferred solution is just to eliminate IP entirely

I don't see how banning porn accomplishes this. Women are the gatekeepers who get to decide whether or not a baby gets born and as a population grows wealthier and more educated the women tend to have less kids. Has very little to do with porn which is mostly watched by men.

The solution to not being like Japan is immigration. That's why our population isn't declining every year like Japan. Without current level of immigration, our population would be decreasing every year and we would be like Japan.

immigration policies are federal regulations on the labor market. i say we open the borders

they won the election. now they are dismantling the levers of government. the goal is to weaken all other national institutions until eventually they can just ignore Congress or Supreme Court

or is there some other narrative

I believe a couple different things

a) he's intentionally weakening the US economy to both weaken establishment institutions and spread mass discontent. he wants people nice and angry and fearful for the future. so when he takes more extreme actions later on, it doesn't seem as bad. also he's probably preparing for some sort of riot movement that includes political violence in the next couple years. as the establishment gets weaker, he'll be in a better position to essentially ignore them. so for example Supreme Court says something unconstitutional? Maybe he just ignores it and enforces his will regardless

b) in the near future we may see a serious decoupling of the US economy from the world. maybe it's due a planned war or some other circumstance and this is in preparation for that. tariffs tend to cut off the economy from the outside world. it'll hurt less later on if we do some of it now

Brother, your economy is getting gigafucked by Trump either way.

If someone shoots at you, you don't shoot yourself in the foot to spite them. Canada is reliant on US trade. Cutting it off entirely would cause a serious economic shockwave that's hard to understate.

Nationalize US factories on their soil

This is extreme and could warrant an invasion from the US. Wars have been fought for less. Look at what happened to Guatemala when they wanted to take back some of the half off their farmland owned by Chiquita.

Canada is a mid-sized power but not really in a position to flaunt US power like that

Kamala would have been at best delaying the inevitable. The DNC is not capable of meaningfully changing fast enough to react to the growing threat of fascism.

i come from a tariff heavy country. you want a sneak peak? inflation. shit is gonna get more expensive. that's it

there has to be a real fear of losing something, otherwise there's no pressure to change. they will never change voluntarily. and after they win/lose an election there is zero pressure to do anything

the best time to criticize is in the immediate lead up to an election

exactly. it escalates over time as things become normalized.

if there are 10 stages we're like at stage 3

in 2016 we were at stage 1. back then, Trump wouldn't dare have said "immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country" - that wouldn't have had a good reception back then. too on the nose. but you start with more subtle things and slowly you shift the overton window of what is and isn't socially acceptable

it's a treadmill and we're jogging

Yes, for most of my life I thought we would never get rid of the illegals for precisely this reason. They are so integrated into our economy that eliminating them would cause a huge fallout. Almost 15 million people here. And they're dramatically over-represented in specific industries.

So for example, you mentioned food. Agriculture, especially in the SW, runs on illegal labor. Construction all over the country runs on illegal labor. The people washing dishes at restaurants, the people cleaning up offices at night, the people working at landscaping companies, etc.

All of those industries are about to experience a severe supply shock of labor. This is going to mean increased prices for food, for landscaping, for construction, etc. Not only that, the services are going to be increasingly harder to staff. It's really hard to find an American willing to relocate to rural areas to dig holes. It's hard to find ones that are willing to pick fruit, etc.

Not to mention the effect that 15 million less consumers eating at local restaurants, buying products from Amazon, paying rent, will have.

And the worst part of it, the part that scares me, is that I'm certain Trump and his allies know this. They are entirely aware of the potential consequences of what they are doing. It does not take an economic savant to understand this and certainly Trump has some very smart advisors around him. So they are aware and they are doing it anyway.

What does that imply? That means they are willing to nuke our economy for this (throw in tariffs too while we're at it). And when I say nuke I mean nuke- there's no going back after this. We're causing permanent long-term structural damage. Why would he be willing to do this?

I fear because there's a lot worse on the horizon. Global war will overshadow the economic fallout from these decisions and will be pointed to as the cause of the near-future economic woes. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here, but this is not a good omen. It's sort of like suicidal people giving away all their money before they off themselves. It's a red flag.

I think we're fucked with a capital F

but as long as he’s hurting non-whites they will sit around giving each other rage handies and praising him

What I find fascinating is the right-wing illegal immigration latinos who support Trump. Up until now they've been saying "He's not going to deport us, he's deporting the criminals". I just read a news article about half of the people they've arrested so far did not have any criminal records.

White House press secretary goes live the other day and says "We're going to deport all of them. They're all criminals as far as I'm concerned"

I think people have this instinctual burning desire to feel part of an "in-group" and to hate against an "out-group". It's such a strong burning desire that people will jump through so many mental hoops even when they are in the "out-group".

Note that being illegal is not a crime. It's like when you get a parking ticket. It's against the law but it isn't a criminal violation. But of course the administration doesn't care and neither does the army of rabid Americans cheering on the destruction of the country.

Just saying, this sounds like a VERY expensive distraction from the fact that they’re working hard on robbing the US coffers blind…

Doesn't matter if the country goes broke. Something like 90% of immigration detention centers are privately owned. This whole thing is going to funnel hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of taxpayer money right into the pockets of wealthy shareholders.

Immigration detention centers have been around for a while now. Virtually all of them ran by private corporations. People rail against private prisons but they make up a tiny tiny minority of prisoners. Over 90% of immigration detention centers are privately owned.

So we're going to throw millions of people into camps so that a few corporations can extract a ton of public taxpayer money. They're also gonna stay there for years because it's logistically impossible to move over 10 million people quickly.

I didn't think fascism would happen again my lifetime. But I guess here we are

62% of the country supports deporting all illegals. Something that would be unbelievable a decade or two ago is now true for most Americans.

A strong majority of the country supports putting millions of people in camps and keeping them there for years. Of course GOP is more fervently against it- the same GOP that idolizes Reagan who gave blanket citizenship to millions of illegals.