Th4tGuyII

So providing a fine-tuned model shouldn’t either.

I didn’t mean in terms of providing. I meant that if someone provided a base model, someone took that and but on of it, then used it for a harmful purpose - of course the person modified it should be liable, not the base provider.

It’s like if someone took a version of Linux, modified it, then used that modified version for a similar person - you wouldn’t go after the person who made the unmodified version.

SB 1047 is a California state bill that would make large AI model providers – such as Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral – liable for the potentially catastrophic dangers of their AI systems.

Now this sounds like a complicated debate - but it seems to me like everyone against this bill are people who would benefit monetarily from not having to deal with the safety aspect of AI, and that does sound suspicious to me.

Another technical piece of this bill relates to open-source AI models. […] There’s a caveat that if a developer spends more than 25% of the cost to train Llama 3 on fine-tuning, that developer is now responsible. That said, opponents of the bill still find this unfair and not the right approach.

In regards to the open source models, while it makes sense that if a developer takes the model and does a significant portion of the fine tuning, they should be liable for the result of that…

But should the main developer still be liable if a bad actor does less than 25% fine tuning and uses exploits in the base model?

One could argue that developers should be trying to examine their black-boxes for vunerabilities, rather than shrugging and saying it can’t be done then demanding they not be held liable.

Could’ve told you that 10 years ago. Literally the moment online came out and they suddenly they stopped talking about story DLCs, I knew we weren’t getting them.

The story-mode campaign is now just a gateway drug to their online cash-cow - I bet you it’ll be the same for GTA 6

Could you simp any harder for Russia?

The Ukrainian people are out there fighting tooth and nail to survive the Russian onslaught, yet you’re in your armchair acting like they should just give up because Russia wants them to.

A law like that would’ve been incredibly helpful back when those Brexit buses were claiming to somehow give the NHS £350M a week, most of which technically never even existed in the first place (as we got back something like 200M a week).

Having Farage, Boris, and their cronies be forced to resign (or even face prison) would’ve been a damn delight.

Could the Russians stop invading another country’s sovereign land?

Ah great - SCOTUS will likely side with the e-sig companies, with absolutely no bribes involved, then e-cig companies will flood the market with colourful, flavoured products designed to entice young people (who may never have smoked otherwise) into starting on e-cigs.

I knew what these were the moment I first saw them advertised as a way to get people to quit smoking - they are, and always were a trojan horse designed to entice a new generation of nicotine addicts. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course Clarence, the most openly corrupt, would be the one to dissent against the OSHA case. Clarence can go fuck himself

Fair enough. Subordinate is the term I’ve always heard used. Direct reports just sounds like the sugar coated version to me.

It really saddens to me see how many managers out there treat their subordinates terribly, and then act surprised when their subordinates do the same - as though employees are meant to greatful for their terrible treatment

Win11 becomes a less and less appealing switch day by day… When I can no longer hold into Win10, I think I’ll just have to jump ship to Linux.

Win10 is already quite privacy poor, but Win11 is straight up intolerable.

The Internet Archive is currently fighting in the courts to maintain free digital library access to over 500,000 books they own from their own collection, yet Meta uses a pirated dataset of nearly 200,000 books to train their proprietary AI and is just allowed to get away with that??

Publishers will go after a charity making fair use of their content, but not the corporation outright stealing from them. What utter bollocks.

Pretty sure later updates for Windows 10 started doing this too, or at least it did on my PC.

Had to completely uninstall OneDrive to get it to stop - which Microsoft sure do make quite difficult to do.

The TL;DR for the article is that the headline isn’t exactly true. At this moment in time their PPU can potentially double a CPU’s performance - the 100x claim comes with the caveat of “further software optimisation”.

Tbh, I’m sceptical of the caveat. It feels like me telling someone I can only draw a stickman right now, but I could paint the Mona Lisa with some training.

Of course that could happen, but it’s not very likely to - so I’ll believe it when I see it.

Having said that they’re not wrong about CPU bottlenecks and the slowed rate of CPU performance improvements - so a doubling of performance would be huge in this current market.

That’s hardly even a story - house repairs cost a lot of money, and NASA’s equipment (by their own admission) caused the damage.

It’s only the police that get away with ruining people’s things without paying.

So essentially weapons manufacturers are now, instead of supplying directly to Russia, allowing their weapons to be sold to vendors with ties to Russian military vendors (who definitely wouldn’t ever supply Russia) and turning a blind eye to it so they can claim to be following sanctions.

What filthy traitors. Should send them to the front line just so they can see what the weapons they’re allowing Russia to obtain are being used for.

Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that none of the memos should have been given to prosecutors on the crime-fraud exception, which allows prosecutors to see privileged communications between a defendant and a lawyer, if their legal advice was used in furtherance of a crime.

They’re expected to argue on the basis that these memos didn’t amount to using Corcoran’s legal advice.

But surely that’s a moot point, because while Trump didn’t use of any specific legal advice, he absolutely abused the privileged information obtained from Corcoran (such as the date of the inspection and the date of his return) in obstructing the return of classified documents to the whitehouse.

The memos make quite clear that Trump abused attorney-client privilege in furtherance of a crime. Plain and simple.

And I severely doubt Corcoran didn’t know what Trump’s intentions were with that information - and if not before, he certainly should’ve known afterwards when being “asked” to pluck out documents.

I legitimately have to wonder how it can be legal for Trump to be trialled by judges he put into power, and that have shown such clear and demonstrable biases in his favour - even going so far as to deliberately delay cases as far as legally possible.

As @ptz@dubvee.org put it, it’s like he’s got an extra special justice system especially for him - who knew all you needed to do was appoint your own judges.

Exactly. At what point does it become good enough to fool us completely.

That’s why I specified the community, as in the more tech savy folks that would care about this, because I know that the wider public is surprisingly tech illiterate

I’ll be curious to see where this ends up going, as I doubt the community will take this lying down.

The few times I’ve had to go without an Ad blocker, I’ve seen just how bad the Ads have gotten - they’re almost the same as regular TV Ad breaks now! … And then YouTube Premium is just not a good deal in my eyes, £12.99 a month is an awful lot to pay just to not see Ads.