trention

6 ms·

1.
by trention 4y ago
>Do the economics of a gpt-as-a-search-engine work? Davinci costs 2 cents for 1000 tokens (≈600 words), so no.
2.
by trention 4y ago
>desegregation was actually bad Yes, preventing freedom of association is actually bad. But, of course, your goal is to force people with legitimate preferences for not associating with other groups of people to do your bidding. And beca
3.
by trention 4y ago
And there you have it, the leftist view in its full insanity - it's not OK to "hate" other races but it's OK to kill non-marginalized whites.
4.
by trention 4y ago
>I’d argue it’s a trend that’s gone on much longer Please, do enlighten us how the first multi-cellular organism was literally the Whig view of history embodied. It will be very entertaining.
5.
by trention 4y ago
Ah, yes, like the extreme position of being against affirmative action: https://www.thefire.org/news/ilya-shapiro-resigns-georgetown...
6.
by trention 4y ago
> racists should find it hard to make friends and find employment. It may surprise you but any form of social ostracism that is not government sanctioned will not achieve any of that regarding regular people. It will affect only celebrit
7.
by trention 4y ago
>actions have consequences and you're being held accountable. If there was no government-sanctioned affirmative action and if discrimination of the basis of race was not outlawed, all the consequences in the world would not change t
8.
by trention 4y ago
Extrapolating from a trend that has held in the West for a double-digit number of years to the entirety of the future of humanity is probably an extreme form of availability bias.
9.
by trention 4y ago
[flagged]
10.
by trention 4y ago
>Would you enjoy to continue working when your boss badly wants to fire you, and your colleagues badly want to have you fired, but they can't by the law? How soon would you leave by yourself? Being fired usually at least involves so
11.
by trention 4y ago
The right of free association was already taken away the moment discrimination on the basis of race was outlawed. Find a better argument.
12.
by trention 4y ago
"There are absolutely things that people can write which they should be removed from their job for though" No, there are not. Anything you say outside of your working time is not the business of your employer.
13.
by trention 4y ago
>we won't be able to tell whether where it came from anyway You won't be able to if you look solely at the output. There are ways to check audit and verify the process by which said output was produced. They are also gamable bu
14.
by trention 4y ago
>The expectations they have for 2030 are frankly delusional. Well, they do start with the delusional "copilot writes 40% of your code" microsoft marketing bullshit which everyone who has ever used it knows is not true, so it re
15.
by trention 4y ago
I generally want to see no ads. Why would I want personalized ones?
16.
by trention 4y ago
Idiotic sealioning having nothing to do with AI and neural nets.
17.
by trention 4y ago
>So, why should an AI be treated different here? I don't understand the argument for this. Because the AI is not a human and only humans have rights, including the right to learn.
18.
by trention 4y ago
>where is that deep hatred of patent trolls Is it patent trolling when you are defending your future labor from being made obsolete by megacorps and signularitarians using your past labor without permission? No, it's justice.
19.
by trention 4y ago
Given a binary choice between unemployability and extending patent protection to (even) snippets of code, I am quite confident that 90+% of salaried developers today will chose the latter.
20.
by trention 4y ago
>Why would anyone (artists/programmers) spend their time doing something a machine can do Why do humans play chess after 1997? Why do they play checkers after the 70s? AI capability is destroying human enjoyment of activities becaus
21.
by trention 4y ago
There is no reason to legally treat humans and algorithms the same way. Only insane, moronic singularitarians claim otherwise.
22.
by trention 4y ago
>Even if we assume the above rule is made, there is no way to prove it because even if a human does it, he might still use the help of photoshop etc which are planning to integrate such tools currently. It's unclear to what extend t
23.
by trention 4y ago
What's profoundly stupid is to assume every piece of technology is good so we should do nothing about its proliferation. Yes, we should ban low-code tools based on deep learning over "fairly used" (not) datasets and we should
24.
by trention 4y ago
>It's interesting to think about all the controversy surrounding machine-generated images in contrast with a scenario where the same images were generated/drawn/created directly by a human. It actually isn't interesti
25.
by trention 4y ago
>Visual arts as a career will be dead soon Put a fine of 10% of annual turnover if a company cannot prove that images used in its product/ads are human generated. Make payment to visual artists part of the process of proving it. Boo
26.
by trention 4y ago
They only believe this because this won't (immediately) affect their material prospects.
27.
by trention 4y ago
No, he hasn't. Conservatives are 0.36 of the general population, which is ~40% higher than the 0.25 that are liberals.
28.
by trention 4y ago
What does that moronic question have to do with what I stated?
29.
by trention 4y ago
"Ensuring diversity" is not a worthwhile goal for any institution.
30.
by trention 4y ago
>_only_ due to external factors. You are the way you are because of your DNA and environment. Your DNA is not an "external factor". Rather, it's the most internal factor there is.

More ›