The popular media is driving the discourse around these topics, nobody is interested in the arbitrary definitions of anonymous randos on niche internet forums.
12,675 karma · joined February 16, 2017
People keep repeating this, but it is only remotely close to true if you evaluate inference in a vacuum without any of the other supporting costs to facilitate that capability.
Just a few years ago people were saying the same thing about WeWork: "leasing is profitable, the unit economics of individual locations is net positive", and yet...
If we accept the narrative that LLMs can defeat the incentive structure of course work as a concept, it raises the question of if college will continue to raise earning potential for much longer.
The same rhetorical tactic was used to diminish blockchain critics.
I'm satisfied with the reasoning as stated. If you can't grasp why a social media ban and refusing to ship a letter are two completely different scenarios with respect to free speech, I can't elucidate it any further. Perhaps you should take your own advice about using an LLM to understand the point.
> "GDPR was given AS AN EXAMPLE. I never suggested it "confers access
You gave it as an example of entitlements, but I pointed out that it doesn't entitle you to anything that you don't already own. Unlike your own data, you don't own a voice on a social media platform, hence why the example doesn't work.
> For what? You know laws can change, don't you?
It doesn't matter that the laws can change. You have no idea if or how they might change, so that observation does not contribute anything to the discussion.
The differences are listed in detail in my first reply to you, plain as day for anyone to see. The rhetorical tactic of repeating "what differences" doesn't change that. I suggest you actually read what I wrote or work on your reading comprehension.
> Do you really want to get into the semantics of "entitlement" vs "right"
You're the one focusing on semantics in order to avoid acknowledging the substantive differences between personal data rights and guaranteed access to social media platforms.
> What's even "your data"? Are the posts you write not "your data
Correct. The posts you write are your data, but GDPR doesn't confer access to a social media platform, only control over your data. You are deliberately conflating data rights with impunity from being banned
> just because the law is a certain way today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be
Your personal opinion about what the law should be is irrelevant.
GDPR is not an "entitlement", its regulation governing how sites can operate with your data, it doesn't entitle you to service.
> The question here is what is a "legal criteria"
You don't have to agree with the legal criteria, but there is no question as to whether it's legal to arbitrarily ban users based on the content of their posts.
> Pointing out that there's a "massive difference" but never explaining what the difference is and how it affects the validity of the comparison
I went into great detail to explain why the analogy is bad, it's up to you if you want to acknowledge it. This isn't 2016, the absurd framing that tries to pretend that you are entitled access to social media platforms on the basis of free speech is tired and obviously wrong.
First of all, there's a massive difference between transporting a private package from point A to point B vs hosting someone's speech on a privately owned platform and broadcasting that speech through a privately owned network, with wider consequences that do not come into play when dealing with private correspondences between parties.
Next, paying a fee to a private company to ship your package confers certain obligations about what you are entitled to, when you are utilizing a privately owned platform for free, you are not entitled to anything.
Finally, a private company is certainly within their rights to refuse to ship your package based on an any legal criteria they choose.
Right, like everywhere on the planet, hence why I ask if you're saying it doesn't exist. It sounds like your answer is yes.
It's also not clear that an internal monologue corresponds to "thinking in text".
I'm using lol here as an expression of rueful delight, not anger. I'm not being sarcastic - the mental image of vehicles autonomously leaping through traffic is really funny to me. However, I'm slightly perturbed by the lack of parsimonious thinking.
No it isn't. Doing work more efficiently through the use of LLMs is not RSI. RSI requires a closed loop automated LLM iteration process which we are not at all close to right now.
You can't possibly be serious lol.
I find it genuinely hilarious that anyone could possibly think this is a good idea.
It's interesting to observe that human reasoning is still the barometer of what "reasonably adjacent" means in the context of a NN's structure.
You could start with standard firewall rules and VLANs. Pretty basic stuff we've had for decades.
I find it hilarious that you'd balk at doing work to secure a network. Even funnier for a company that's supposedly solved white collar labor.
Zero days are nothing new, secure containment has been a solved problem for a long time.