Could always be a cash grab. Announce stupid thing, get paid to stop stupid thing.
Kissaki
joined 2 years ago
I think the license conditions are pretty clear. The main issue is that LLMs can not respect the license conditions.
The content I published under AGPL I want to be used freely under copyleft. Reproduction without AGPL does not meet those conditions. Stuff I published under CC-BY-SA, LLMs can't guarantee either BY attribution nor consistently reproduce SA.
Whether training and consequential abstraction without reproduction is acceptable is a more difficult, subjective, and nuanced question.
This makes me wonder how the deno targeting Oracle to free the JavaScript trademark process is coming along. It's been a while since I read something from it.
Every tweet
Poop emoji - this has been fact checked but can not be independently verified due to lack of context
The title is in Early Access, and apparently they already removed the AI cutscenes.
On the Steam store page, the second trailer still shows an AI trailer. I assume it was in this style.
Currently, it sits at 70 Steam reviews; Mixed.
Half of the 70 is certainly not a huge backlash. Given they removed it now, and it's still in early access, maybe they can recover.
CC BY-SA gives freedom of use. Why do you think additional consent would be necessary? Or do you mean that because the restricting conditions are not met, additional consent would be necessary?
Given the form of transformation, Share-Alike is certainly difficult to meet, if not impossible. Is that what you referred to with "is not open"? Or do you mean something else?
India did it.
I watched a clip recently of someone pointing out how many deaths by vehicles we normalized, we accept.
This reminds me of that. If this is the standard, seems like only a matter of time until people get hurt (ignoring past safety record of Tesla locking people in burning cars and auf anyway).
that the Audit Assistance can flag “what may look like an odd search history from a specific user,” helping customers understand how their users are operating the system.
A flag does not mean that it is definitely abuse — it only means it warrants further investigation.”
Helping the customer => entirely dependent on how the violating org handles these.
Even usefulness is entirely dependent on how effective the flags are in the first place. If false positives are too high, even good intended may call not worth it.
It may even be counter-productive if perpetrators cheer each other on when getting flags but no consequences.
Without transparency on 1. flag conditions 2. number of flags per org 3. results of org response/flag-flagging… who wants to trust this?
Imagine the local government decides they can't pull water anymore. Like several nuclear reactors having to shut down due to low river levels recently.
The picture of facility in vast desert is baffling.
When I think of accessibility, I find it plausible that it's not just convenient but essential or necessary for some people.
view more: next ›
I don't think it having some upside makes it a good/okay thing… Still seems pretty stupid and net negative.