freejazz

10 ms·

1.
by freejazz 6d ago
I'm not taking them at their word, sorry. Genuinely, there is no reason to.
2.
by freejazz 6d ago
What legal issues?
3.
by freejazz 6d ago
lol you can't copyright mathematics
4.
by freejazz 6d ago
Yeah, and suckers are born every day...
5.
by freejazz 6d ago
> but I can believe it to be accidental What accident is it when the system is designed to function that way?
6.
by freejazz 7d ago
What a weird conclusion to come to looking at the world around you
7.
by freejazz 7d ago
Yeah, they didn't choose the line of attack, the person they copied it from did..
8.
by freejazz 7d ago
>and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." Legally safe? Forensic level guarantee? Since when do they make t
9.
by freejazz 7d ago
They do look pretty stupid right now, actually.
10.
by freejazz 8d ago
It's one of those questions that sets the bar so low, the conversation might as well not be taking place
11.
by freejazz 8d ago
> do people really think OpenAI is snooping at people specifically? I'd be shocked if they weren't
12.
by freejazz 8d ago
What does it matter? We're supposed to not call it plagiarism anymore because it's inconvenient to call it the plagiarism machine? What's your actual argument? Otherwise it's completely irrelevant what an LLM does in oth
13.
by freejazz 8d ago
>I refuted all these accusations but he replied “there is nothing you can do, I simply do not trust you”. I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering Pretty insane i
14.
by freejazz 8d ago
They are already claimed to be liars
15.
by freejazz 8d ago
I don't think the poster was crying for those leaders
16.
by freejazz 8d ago
Still waiting for anyone to point to any good done by prediction markets
17.
by freejazz 13d ago
The third circuit's opinion is poorly reasoned and its not binding precedent in California anyway, which can now regulate Kalshi because the ninth circuit's decision is binding precedent in California. Congress does not need to
18.
by freejazz 13d ago
Yeah but they markets don't equilibrate. Again, the 2022 election pool just reflected the thought of a big whale.
19.
by freejazz 13d ago
They are partisan. It's just whoever decides to make the bets. Like the 2022 election situation was just one big whale. There's just nothing about it that makes it inherently non-partisan.
20.
by freejazz 13d ago
Nothing needs to be done, Kalshi has no loophole. The Ninth Circuit ruled on exactly this last week.
21.
by freejazz 13d ago
>the rationalist community seems to have had a longstanding interest in the idea Easiest way to know its just valueless
22.
by freejazz 13d ago
> competent DOJ Answered your own question.
23.
by freejazz 13d ago
This website has been full of people that say it's better than journalism, so I don't think you're really capturing the entirety of the dynamic
24.
by freejazz 13d ago
Yeah, and? Being a parent doesn't entitle someone to do anything they want
25.
by freejazz 21d ago
[flagged]
26.
by freejazz 21d ago
> You know what point I was making Try being as generous as you demand of others
27.
by freejazz 21d ago
So what should the law be? Don't be negligent? Don't be reckless? It already functions that way. Do we need to have statutes expressly dictating what people are allowed to do?
28.
by freejazz 21d ago
They don't have to be solely responsible. What they are responsible for are their own actions.
29.
by freejazz 21d ago
>Doesn’t Facebook invest a significant part to protect their brand by limiting and censoring content? Not really. >Last I checked Facebook didn’t have Rotten content on it. Instagram directly connects children with children predators.
30.
by freejazz 21d ago
No, there's no need to. It has no bearing on the fact that Facebook facilitates child exploitation.

More ›