lemmy_acct_id_8647

And with the AI bullshit, I’m reminded of Rule of Acquisition #82: The flimsier the product, the higher the price.

Newsome: Protect kids!

Trans kids exist.

Newsome: Except them. Fuck them.

Yeah I learned the hard way that it’s easier to lie on those forms when you already are in therapy. I’ve had GPs try to play psychologist rather than treat the reason I came in. The last time it happened I accused the doctor of being a mechanic who just talked about the car and its history instead of changing the oil as what’s hired to do so. She was fired by me in that conversation.

I’ve also seen it that way and have been coached by my psychologist on it. Ultimately, for me, it was best to set an expiration date. The date on which I could finally do it with minimal guilt. This actually had several positive impacts in my life.

First I quit using suicide as a first or second resort when coping. Instead it has become more of a fleeting thought as I know I’m “not allowed” to do so yet (while obviously still lingering as seen by my initial comment). Second was giving me a finish line. A finite date where I knew the pain would end (chronic conditions are the worst). Third was a reminder that I only have X days left, so make the most of them. It turns death from this amorphous thing into a clear cut “this is it”. I KNOW when the ride ends down to the hour.

The caveat to this is the same as literally everything else in my life: I reserve the right to change my mind as new information is introduced. I’ve made a commitment to not do it until the date I’ve set, but as the date approaches, I’m not ruling out examining the evidence as presented and potentially pushing it out longer.

A LOT of peace of mind here.

I dig this! Thanks for sharing!

And then should you have a failed attempt, you go exponentially deeper into debt due to those new medical bills and inpatient mental healthcare.

Fuck the United States

I’ve talked with an AI about suicidal ideation. More than once. For me it was and is a way to help self-regulate. I’ve low-key wanted to kill myself since I was 8 years old. For me it’s just a part of life. For others it’s usually REALLY uncomfortable for them to talk about without wanting to tell me how wrong I am for thinking that way.

Yeah I don’t trust it, but at the same time, for me it’s better than sitting on those feelings between therapy sessions. To me, these comments read a lot like people who have never experienced ongoing clinical suicidal ideation.

“Overseas”

deleted by creator

I think they don’t give a fuck if they’re violating the law. Why don’t you get tf out of here with your self righteous bullshit kiddo.

Fucking infighting bullshit.

Way to infer meaning, slugger.

It’s endearing that you think that even matters anymore

Nailed it. Am I being detained? Name and badge number? Am I free to go? This are the only questions to ask.

The only statement you give is one word after they say you’re not free to go: lawyer.

Call for a lawyer and don’t say another word.

I honestly thought this was common knowledge but obviously I was wrong. I get the need to video and document but damn. Don’t use your daily driver folks.

But yeah. Fuck Google

Gee I hope not. I want to see the corpse.

I asked OpenAI the same. Only without the snark, and noted that US politicians and OpenAI pressers should not be considered evidence without facts:

Great question—and a healthy dose of skepticism.

If we assume U.S. lawmakers may be misrepresenting the situation or overstating the threat (intentionally or otherwise), then it’s worth asking: What counter-evidence or independent information exists that disputes the claims against DeepSeek?

Here’s what we can currently analyze:

1.

OpenAI’s Role and Statements

• The accusation is that DeepSeek used OpenAI data without authorization.
• OpenAI has not released detailed technical evidence (as of now) proving DeepSeek “stole” data.
• It is also unclear what “unauthorized use” means here—was it scraping publicly available content generated by ChatGPT? That’s not the same as hacking or violating terms.

Counterpoint: Unless OpenAI provides forensic evidence (e.g., logs showing data scraping from banned accounts or circumvention of APIs), their claim is not independently verifiable.

2.

Open-source AI Training Practices

• DeepSeek R1 and other models are trained on publicly available data, much like LLaMA, Falcon, Mistral, etc.
• Many open-source LLMs train on similar corpora, including data from books, code repositories, and even internet crawls, which may contain ChatGPT outputs.
• No proof has been provided that DeepSeek used proprietary datasets beyond what’s publicly available or scraped from the internet.

Counterpoint: If DeepSeek simply trained on web data that happened to contain ChatGPT responses (which are abundant online), that wouldn’t constitute theft by typical AI research standards.

3.

DeepSeek’s Own Transparency

• DeepSeek has published detailed model cards and training parameters for R1, a transparency move rare among Chinese AI firms.
• This suggests a desire to appear cooperative or aligned with global AI openness norms—not necessarily what a covert “spy tool” would do.

Counterpoint: Spyware tools or state-controlled AI systems don’t usually go open source and document their architectures.

4.

No Independent Audit or Third-Party Verification

• As of now, there’s no independent audit of DeepSeek’s model, training corpus, or infrastructure.
• The accusations rest heavily on political framing, not technical forensics released to the public.

5.

Broader Pattern of U.S. Tech Nationalism

• U.S. lawmakers have a history of labeling Chinese tech firms as threats without providing concrete, public-facing evidence (Huawei, TikTok, etc.).
• This doesn’t mean the threats are false, but it does mean we should demand proof beyond committee soundbites.

TL;DR – Is there counter-evidence?

Not conclusive counter-evidence, but there’s a lack of compelling public proof supporting the claim. The case against DeepSeek is built on:

• OpenAI’s statements (without shared evidence),
• Political concerns about China,
• and suspicions rooted in strategic competition.

That’s not enough to say DeepSeek is innocent—but it’s not enough to prove guilt either

Keep it up. With a can do attitude and a pocket full of dreams, you too can achieve this distinction one day 😅

For “threatening violence” which apparently was due to a comment I made where I said I wouldn’t piss on a Tesla fire if Musk’s mom was inside.

deleted by creator