REDACTED

joined 2 years ago
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 24 points 3 weeks ago

They might be referring to endogamy

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

So you can kill and get killed instead of fight legally?

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 20 points 3 weeks ago

Imagine torrenting a videogame trailer

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 3 weeks ago (24 children)

Yeah, I strongly disagree. It's a genuinely valid way to figure out someone better. While the tests and all that aren't really standardized, the idea is quite clear, and the idea works. Just because it was made mainstream, does not mean it's suddenly bad. Just because the origins are sketchy, does not mean the theory is invalid. It just essentially means one's ability to objectively assess your own and other's emotions, feel empathy (not just understand it, but feel it), low emotional intelligence people would be less rational about their own and everyone's else's emotions. You simply cannot argue against this. It's a skill/mechanism that makes society function better.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (26 children)

I genuinely don't understand your argument. Are you saying it's not a valid measurement system because humans came up with it? Just like everything else? What is your actual argument against emotional Intelligence as a metric besides that it was created by someone you don't like?

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 3 weeks ago (28 children)

Nobody was talking about 'emotional intelligence' 5 years ago in popular culture. Now it's ubiquitous.

This is so incredibly false. Just look at the google trends. In 2004 it's popularity was similar to that of 5 years ago, and even back in my teenager years I constantly heard it around and was part of studies.

I don't understand what does actual buzzwords have to do with measurement system. They pretty much never go away just like IQ.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 3 weeks ago

The cobbler's children have no shoes

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 3 weeks ago (30 children)

Everything can be a buzzword if it doesn't directly apply to a selfish person with low EQ

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The law is kinda weak. You really only need to slightly modify it for it to be copyrightable. No one really pushes full ChatGPT outputs as production code, and so it's safe to assume code can almost always be copyrighted, as long as you did something yourself

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

To be fair, it has been quite clear that the LLMs will move beyond language ever since we figured out how to train tools. LLM is essentially a method of machine learning and execution, but it's not limited to language. The output can be commands uninterpretable by human eyes.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, only today I learned Llama can communicate more efficiently between themselves; https://youtu.be/EtNagNezo8w?is=cI0osETPI5FbQ08s

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Im not sure how that cancels out what they said. One of their first models said "I'm ChatGPT" when asked who are you and it was rumored they used OpenAI model outputs for training.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 4 points 3 weeks ago

lesser known, but imo iZombie was a fun one too

view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί