yes, that’s exactly the point of everything I’ve said:
to an inexperienced user/developer/admin the output LLMs produce look perfectly valid, and for relatively trivial tasks they might even work out…but when it gets more specialized it fails spectacularly and it gets extremely obvious just how limited of a system it really is.
which is why there is so much pushback from professionals. actually that’s pretty much all professionals, not just in IT.
yeah, no… that’s not at all what i said.
i didn’t say “AI doesn’t work”, i said it works exactly as expected: producing bullshit.
i understand perfectly well how to get it to spit out useful information, because i know what i can and cannot ask it about.
I’d much rather not use it, but it’s pretty much unavoidable now, because of how trash search results have become, specifically for technical subjects.
what absolutely doesn’t work is asking AI to perform highly specific, production critical configurations on live systems.
you CAN use it to get general answers to general questions.
“what’s a common way to do this configuration?” works well enough.
“fix this config file for me!” doesn’t work, because it has no concept of what that means in your specific context. and no amount of increasingly specific prompts will ever get you there. …unless “there” is an utter clusterfuck, see the OP top of chain (should have been more specific here…) for proof…
no, AI just sucks ass with any highly customized environment, like network infrastructure, because it has exactly ZERO capacity for on-the-fly learning.
it can somewhat pretend to remember something, but most of the time it doesn’t work, and then people are so, so surprised when it spits out the most ridiculous config for a router, because all it did was string together the top answers on stack overflow from a decade ago, stripping out any and all context that makes it make sense, and presents it as a solution that seems plausible, but absolutely isn’t.
LLMs are literally design to trick people into thinking what they write makes sense.
they have no concept of actually making sense.
this is not an exception, or an improper use of the tech.
it’s an inherent, fundamental flaw.
ublock has the same function; it’s the thunderbolt icon, which let’s you just zap away whatever html element offends you!
…no fancy animation tho…is there a plugin that animates the ublock zapper? that would be very fun!
exactly!
using a “detector” is how (not all, but a lot of) AIs (LLMs, GenAI) are trained:
have one AI that’s a “student”, and one that’s a “teacher” and pit them against one another until the student fools the teacher nearly 100% of the time. this is what’s usually called “training” an AI.
one can do very funny things with this tech!
for anyone that wants to see this process in action, here’s a great example:
afaik, there actually aren’t any reliable tools for this.
the highest accuracy rate I’ve seen reported for “AI detectors” is somewhere around 60%; barely better than a random guess…
edit: i think that way for text/LLM, to be fair.
kinda doubt images are much better though…happy to hear otherwise, if there are better ones!
you can just run battlenet through steam:
a tiny bit of effort, but only required once. everything afterwards just works!
because it’s completely unsubstantiated bullshit?
why would anyone upvote “someone’s feelings” on a technical subject?
this is a technology we’re talking about: there is an objective right and wrong, feelings are irrelevant. especially when those feelings are completely baseless.
the better question is: why would anyone upvote this garbage?
tesla/spaceX have literal teams whose only job it is to keep this moron from driving the company into the ground.
he’s an idiot.
…they are quoting a meme:
“would someone really do that? just go on the internet and tell lies?”
it’s a joke you didn’t recognize…maybe chill out a bit?
there is, maybe, a market for more specialized, niche platforms…but it’s a huge maybe.
nebula seems to be doing very well, but again: highly specialized content, and a closed/curated platform.
other than serving video content, it has little in common with yt…hence the big “maybe”!
and there’s been a few similar attempts in recent years, which i don’t think really went anywhere either…
Windows itself already splits those up in security and feature updates…
so first of all: fair points.
but also to consider:
or to some it up:
✅: fuck the catholic church and fuck the pope!
🚫: but never, EVER, fuck with the pope!
Madonna really, truly, has a point here: the pope could probably end this genocide!
because as you’ve pointed out; having fans in gaza isn’t really important!
…but the leader of THE most influential religion in the entire world?
hell yeah, that guy has influence! and hell yeah they could definitely throw their weight behind this cause!
and Madonna drawing attention to that fact is actually solid strategy to get the church to respond:
no response means complicity, but virtually any response other than a resounding renunciation will be seen as weakness.
she is putting them on the spot, forcing a reaction. that’s how politics works, and this is a political move, and an honestly pretty great one at that!
edit; forgot this bit:
this is why Madonna pointing at the pope is more than just a rich person that could do more being cheap; nobody in the world has the sheer support of the pope and the catholic church. she’s acting as a force amplifier. that’s something that goes beyond mere monetary influence, although you are absolutely right that she could do more.
check your email addresses, then check for malware on your system.
that’s definitely not normal…
what a ridiculous idea. that’s not how anything works:
copyright applies to the intellectual property, not the exact file.
so the code itself is the copyrighted thing, not the file you download.
it doesn’t matter whether you download the gpl version, you type out the gpl version by hand, or delete all new code until only gpl code is left.
all you would need to proof is that the code is identical to the gpl code. how you got to that code is completely irrelevant.
you have some fundamental misunderstandings about copyrighted material, intellectual property, and fair use.
most importantly: copyright applies to intellectual property. the idea of a thing, not the physical thing.
so in the case of this emulator, the file and where you got it from is completely irrelevant; only the content of the file, the code, has any meaning. which means any files that contain the same code are identical in the eyes of the law, regardless of how you got them.
copyright is not a contract, but a license. and a license is a manual that explains how intellectual property (the idea of a thing, not the physical thing) is allowed to be used by someone. it’s not specific to an individual, which is why contracts have to be signed by both parties. so no, you don’t have a contract and no obligation to adhere to the new one at all. you can choose to use the old license, as long as you don’t use any of the new code.
unless you want to modify and/or distribute the new code, the license (CC-BY-NC-ND) is irrelevant for the user.
and you can modify your own private copy as much as you want, you just can’t distribute it, or modify and use it in a way that is illegal in some other way. but that’s about it.
and all of this applies to both US and german law.
and none of this is remotely relevant, because the gpl version is still available for download!
nothing got replaced, so the gpl license is very much still applicable to that version of the software!
“new” does not mean that the old version went anywhere; it’s still around. and you can still use, modify, and distribute it under the gpl.
for “this dude” to have any meaning to anyone, there needs to be a name attached at the very least.
that alone is personal information.
personal information is any information that can be used to uniquely identify a natural person.
this app was nothing but personal information being deliberately spread without the persons consent.
man am i glad this sort of bullshit isn’t even up for discussion in the EU…what an absolute nightmare for privacy…
yes, correct, assuming a solo project!
thank you for the correction.
yes and no:
the copyright owner can do whatever they want, but they can’t really revoke a GPL license. that’s not really a thing.
and the part about
If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement.
seems to me like you are implying that “use under the old license” means “run the program on my own machine”, but that’s not true, since GPL explicitly allows redistribution and modification.
under a GPL license, you effectively give up control over your software voluntarily:
The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses, or copyleft licenses, that guarantee end users the freedom to run, study, share, or modify the software.
(highlighted the relevant portion for your convenience)
this makes revoking the license effectively impossible.
you could continue development under a different license, but that gets legally tricky very quickly.
for example: all the code previously under GPL, stays under GPL. so if someone where to modify those parts of the code and redistribute it as a patch, you couldn’t legally do anything about that.
which seems to be what the OOP claims the change to a CC-BY-NC-ND forbids, apparently misunderstanding, that this new license only applies to code added to the repo since the license change, not the code from before the license change.
yes you can!
…for new versions. not for already released ones.
at least not with most common copyleft/open source licenses.
edit: assuming a solo project. see below.
sure, and that works at small scales and as long as no change is required.
when either of those two change (large projects where interdependent components become inevitable and frequent updates are necessary) it becomes impossible to use AI for basically anything.
any change you make then has to be carefully considered and weighed against it’s consequences, which AIs can’t do, because they can’t absorb the context of the entire project.
look, I’m not saying you can’t use AI, or that AI is entirely useless.
I’m saying that using AI is the same as any other tool; use it deliberately and for the right job at the right time.
the big problem, especially in commercial contexts, is people using AI without realizing these limitations, thinking it’s some magical genie that can everything.