That isn’t what trans means. To be trans is to reject the gender assigned to you, which was informed by biology but less objective than something like the term “biological male” implies.
That isn’t what trans means. To be trans is to reject the gender assigned to you, which was informed by biology but less objective than something like the term “biological male” implies.
Lord Kill The Pain
Katana Zero
Celeste
Cuphead
Opus Magnum
If they need money honestly Tencent is better than a lot of the alternatives who might be willing to invest.
It takes a village to raise a child, not a “mother” and “father” specifically. I do not idolize the hetero nuclear family.
Your internal gender didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree.
Explain how they make money buying property?
Landlords inflate prices of property.
Turns out having a value proposition beyond “we bundled a lot of software together that you can get on any distro” has allure.
Most politicians in the West don’t actually care about humanitarian issues in China. That has almost nothing to do with why we don’t play nice.
Hair tie. I always have 1, or 2, or 3 in my pocket.
Something like Microsoft Word or Paint is not generative.
It is standard for publishers to make indemnity agreements with creatives who produce for them, because like I said, it’s kinda difficult to prove plagiarism in the negative so a publisher doesn’t want to take the risk of distributing works where originality cannot be verified.
I’m not arguing that we should change any laws, just that people should not use these tools for commercial purposes if the producers of these tools will not take liability, because if they refuse to do so their tools are very risky to use.
I don’t see how my position affects the general public not using these tools, it’s purely about the relationship between creatives and publishers using AI tools and what they should expect and demand.
Those analogies don’t make any sense.
Anyway, as a publisher, if I cannot get OpenAI/ChatGPT to sign an indemnity agreement where they are at fault for plagiarism then their tool is effectively useless because it is really hard to determine something in not plagiarism. That makes ChatGPT pretty sus to use for creatives. So who is going to pay for it?
What vegan thinks you can turn a cat vegan? That’s like thinking you can turn a cat hegelian or something.
While I agree that using copyrighted material to train your model is not theft, text that model produces can very much be plagiarism and OpenAI should be on the hook when it occurs.
It’s not hypocritical to care about some parts of copyright and not others. For example most people in the foss crowd don’t really care about using copyright to monetarily leverage being the sole distributor of a work but they do care about attribution.
You’re asking the wrong question.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States
Then shouldn’t it either be changed to “of any cause” or terminate after “dying”.
LLMs don’t “know” anything. The true things they say are just as much bullshit as the falsehoods.
Sourdough with chunky peanut butter, ground mustard, and aioli.