And they’re all with different commit message:
“switched arse to bottom to create a more uplifting vibe”
“took arse out and put bottom in to keep my language warm and friendly”
“thought bottom would sound a lot nicer than arse, so I used it”
And so on…
Type in "Is Kamala Harris a good Democratic candidate
…and any good search engine will find results containing keywords such as “Kamala Harris”, “Democratic”, “candidate”, and “good”.
[…] you might ask if she’s a “bad” Democratic candidate instead
In that case, of course the search engine will find results containing keywords such as “Kamala Harris”, “Democratic”, “candidate”, and “bad”.
So the whole premise that, “Fundamentally, that’s an identical question” is just bullshit when it comes to searching. Obviously, when you put in the keyword “good”, you’ll find articles containing “good”, and if you put in the keyword “bad”, you’ll find articles containing “bad” instead.
Google will find things that match the keywords that you put in. So does DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Yahoo, whatever. That is what a good search engine is supposed to do.
I can assure you, when search engines stop doing that, and instead try to give “balanced” results, according to whatever opaque criteria for “balanced” their company comes up with, that will be the real problem.
I don’t like Google, and only use google when other search engines fail. But this article is BS.
In TikTok or instagram reels, you don’t follow people you like. You just watch stuff happening.
That’s actually the whole point of TikTok, what made it different when it started. An app for short videos where you follow people you like is more of a Snapchat competitor, not TikTok.
If we wait for AI to be advanced enough to solve the problem and don’t do anything in the meantime, when the time finally comes, the AI will (then, rightfully) determine that there’s only one way to solve it…
My bet is, it’ll be Saturday that goes, finally achieving a 6-day work week.
Actually, much of that description, perpetuated by dystopian novels, is pretty far off the mark - and it’s the kind of mischaracterization that makes it harder to fight back against authoritarian governments.
The fact is, the vast majority of people in authoritarian states live ordinary lives, just like everywhere else. That’s part of what makes these governments so resilient. If everyone in there lived a nightmare, they wouldn’t last for decades, they’d collapse at the first sign of instability. After all, there are a lot more people than government officials.
For example, a canny authoritarian government won’t disappear anyone who steps out of line. Instead, they’d provide a “safe, legitimate” way to step out of line, that’s well regulated and doesn’t pose a threat to the government, but serves as an outlet. And most people will be satisfied with it. That’s both more subtle, and more effective, that instilling fear in everyone’s heart.
Technically, “enforced pay it forward” is called credit. Your debt would then be “the amount you still have to pay forward”.
Of course, this defeats both the spirit and the purpose of a pay it forward scheme.
It’s not an article about LLMs not using dialects. In fact, they have learned said dialects and will use them if asked.
What they did was, ask the LLM to suggest adjectives associated with sentences - and it would associate more aggressive or negative adjectives with African dialect.
Seems like not a bias by AI models themselves, rather a reflection of the source material.
All (racial) bias in AI models is actually a reflection of the training data, not of the modelling.
And who hasn’t contributed any code to this particular repo (according to github insights).
The biggest issue is that there isn’t a universal agreement on what causes harm. There is agreement on the basics - murder, violence, etc - but they’re already illegal anyways, no need to ban them by license.
upcoming EU AI Act that regulates open source systems differently, creating an urgent need for practical openness assessment
So when they say “openness” they do put it in the context of open source rather accessibility.
Because FOSS shouldn’t add burdens. You publish your work and let everyone else use it. That shouldn’t add extra obligations on you. Usually, you’d also write some docs - after all, without them nobody will know how to use your program, so why bother publishing - but it shouldn’t be an obligation. Make it easy for people to open up their code without this attaching strings.
Documentation is nice, but it’s kind of different thing that open source: a program can be open and undocumented, or closed but well documented - and I don’t see why we’d want it different for models.
A bunch of these columns are outright absurd TBH, to the extend I’m not sure the author really knows what FOSS is about. What’s open API access even supposed to be - API access is closed by definition.
Also there has never been a requirement that open source software needs to be documented - and for good reason - so I’m not a fan of the documentation column as well.
15 hours for what period of time? The article mentions they’d refill in two days…
I like the idea, but I really hate that they’ve hardcoded the provider.
How do you declaratively apply the configuration? Is that a feature of Kvaesitso?
Because it’s not a very easy case. In fact, there is no real case.
Because judges are people, not robots mindlessly applying legislation. To succeed in such case you need the judges on the trial and all appeals to all decide to maliciously comply with the law.
My impression from the article was, The Onion bid contained both a monetary sum, and partial debt relief. The total value then - the sum + the debt relief - was higher, and that’s how it won. So, it wasn’t just the victims’ backing weighing in, they actually put money on it.