I don't know anything about the Green party except that they exist and always run for president. Are they actually big enough to have made a difference in the election? I've always seen them as a meme nobody takes seriously.
gamer
joined 2 years ago
To my knowledge Musk is gambling with his own money, not hedge fund capital or something.
Well, he had to get financing from multiple banks to purchase Twitter
Elon over here pulling the old "I know you are but what am I" strategy. Truly a genius.
gun ownership is support of child murder.
It is, and you're a limp dick loser for owning them. Its a hobby that routinely leads to school shootings and mass murders, and defending it means you're either a selfish moron, or a truly evil person.
...But the democratic party hasn't disarmed anyone. No serious effort to do so ever goes anywhere, and any attempts to regulate guns usually fail or are ineffective. Even when they had a majority, they didn't ban guns. To think this is something they were ever seriously interested in is silly, and probably a sign you've been spending too much time on internet gun communities (which are pretty much all far right conspiracy shit holes)
While it's true we're a very litigious country, it's also a meme that blows the reality out of proportion. In my circle of friends and family, the only lawsuits have been insurance related (car accidents, etc), or financial stuff (sued by a corporation for not paying a debt, suing employer for unpaid wages, etc). All of that is pretty standard stuff.
I've never met or heard of anyone near my circle who has sued another person over some personal issue/grievance. If you run over someone's foot with a shopping cart at the supermarket, you're more likely to get into a fist fight (or a shoot out) than a lawsuit.
waste of time and money
Well, the legal system here is relatively efficient, and if you do decide to take someone to court and win, there's a good chance it'll be worth it. If anything, the large number of lawsuits is a testament to how well the legal system works. If it didn't, people wouldn't use it so often.
You can bring a stupid frivolous lawsuit intended to waste everyone's time and money, but those can get dismissed quickly.
Calculators made mental math obsolete. GPS apps made people forget how to navigate on their own.
Maybe those are good innovations or not. Arguments can be made both ways, I guess.
But if AI causes critical thinking skills to atrophy, I think it's hard to argue that that's a good thing for humanity. Maybe the end game is that AI achieves sentience and takes over the world, but is benevolent, and takes care of us like beloved pets (humans are AI's best friend). Is that good? Idk
Or maybe this isn't a real issue and the study is flawed, or more realistically, my interpretation of the study is wrong because I only read the headline of this article and not the study itself?
Who knows?
This doesn't account for blinking.
If your friend blinks, they won't see the light, and thus would be unable to verify whether the method works or not.
But how does he know when to open his eyes? He can't keep them open forever. Say you flash the light once, and that's his signal to keep his eyes open. Okay, but how long do you wait before starting the experiment? If you do it immediately, he may not have enough time to react. If you wait too long, his eyes will dry out and he'll blink.
This is just not going to work. There are too many dependent variables.
There's so much misinfo spreading about this, and while I don't blame you for buying it, I do blame you for spreading it. "It sounds legit" is not how you should decide to trust what you read. Many people think the earth is flat because the conspiracy theories sound legit to them.
DeepSeek probably did lie about a lot of things, but their results are not disputed. R1 is competitive with leading models, it's smaller, and it's cheaper. The good results are definitely not from "sheer chip volume and energy used", and American AI companies could have saved a lot of money if they had used those same techniques.
The model weights and research paper are
I think you're conflating "open source" with "free"
What does it even mean for a research paper to be open source? That they release a docx instead of a pdf, so people can modify the formatting? Lol
The model weights were released for free, but you don't have access to their source, so you can't recreate them yourself. Like Microsoft Paint isn't open source just because they release the machine instructions for free. Model weights are the AI equivalent of an exe file. To extend that analogy, quants, LORAs, etc are like community-made mods.
To be open source, they would have to release the training data and the code used to train it. They won't do that because they don't want competition. They just want to do the facebook llama thing, where they hope someone uses it to build the next big thing, so that facebook can copy them and destroy them with a much better model that they didn't release, force them to sell, or kill them with the license.
Is it just me or is that title worded as confusingly as possible?
Literally nothing. A corporation, especially a publicly traded one like that, can't do much but maximize (ideally long-term, but usually short-term) shareholder returns.
The Activision-Microsoft merger is a good recent example of this. During the anti trust trial, the CEO of Activision literally came out and said that he believes it's a bad idea that will be bad for the industry and bad for the company in the long term, using the impact of consolidation in Hollywood as an example, but he has to side with the board. He's basically legally obligated to.
I'm not saying it's unjust or a bad system (and I'm definitely not trying to paint Bobby Kotick as a good guy), I just want to point out that corporations are very simple in their purpose, and nobody should be expecting anything more from them. If you're disappointed that Google made this 180, that's on you for falling in love with a corporation. They're useful tools for producing goods and services, but terrible as a political tool for democracy.
But for some reason, it became popular to fetishize tech companies, and that spawned megalomaniacs like Elon, Zuckerberg, Horowitz, Thiel, etc who feel like they should be the supreme rulers of our civilization.