More likely you’re more interested in finding a way to disagree with the concept of posiwid than in doing basic research or listening.

It’s funny when y’all use “fear mongering” for people pointing out systemic issues with ai and its hype. Though it’s honestly tragic how uninterested you are in considering why AI and its hype is being criticized. Whatever makes the exploitative slave labor trained energy hungry silicon make venture capital money disappear, eh?

It’s a very common talking point now to claim technology exists independent of the culture surrounding it. It is a lie to justify morally vacant research which the, normally venture capitalist, is only concerned about the money to be made. But engineers and scientists necessarily go along with it. It’s not not your problem because we are the ones executing cultural wants, we are a part of the broader culture as well.

The purpose of a system is, absolutely, what it does. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned your design and ethics were, once the system is doing things, those things are its purpose. Your waste heat example, yes, it was the design intent to eliminate that, but now that’s what it does, and the engineers damn well understand that its purpose is to generate waste heat in order to do whatever work it’s doing.

This is a systems engineering concept. And it’s inescapable.

It does not appear to me that you have even humored my request. I’m actually not even confident you read my comment given your response doesn’t actually respond to it. I hope you will.

Those people doing the majority of the lumping, and it’s not even close, are the corporations themselves. The short hand exists. Machine learning is doing fine. Intentionally misinterpreting a message to incidentally defend the actions of the corporations doing the damage you are opposed to ain’t it.

You should really try and consider what it means for technology to be a cultural feature. Think, genuinely and critically, about what it means when someone tells you that you shouldn’t judge the ethics and values of their pursuits, because they are simply discovering “universal truths”.

And then, really make sure you ponder what it means when people say the purpose of a system is what it does. Why that might get brought up in discussions about wanton resource spending for venture capitalist hype.

So you’re using a different specific and niche technology (which directly benefits and exists because of) the technology that is the subject of critique, and acting like the subject technology behaves like yours?

“Google is doing a bad with z”

“z can’t be bad, I use y and it doesn’t have those problems that are already things that happened. In the past. Unchangeable by future actions.”

??

Technology is a cultural creation, not a magic box outside of its circumstances. “The problem isn’t the technology, it’s the creators, users, and perpetuators” is tautological.

And, importantly, the purpose of a system is what it does.

In what sense does a small community working with open weight (note: rarely if ever open source) llm have any mitigating impact on the rampant carbon emissions for the sake of bullshit generators?

the entire notion of Ukrainian independence from Russia. Until Russia can comprehensively beat that idea out of the Ukrainian ethos, this war will not end.

Now to be clear, you’re not of course advocating that Russia do that therefore violating a peoples self determination, right?

Re: edit - you should actually read the article on what tone policing is in their conception and what is harmful about it, not all being called out for dickish replyguy behavior is tone policing. Frustration and aggression can be warranted, and is fine to express, but when all you’re doing is arguing with no cogent point (see: yelling into the void) and misinterpreting what someone is saying to the point of absurdity, aggression is being actively harmful to the discussion. That’s just being an ass for catharsis.

And again, the point was to point out that the person you’re responding to did not say what you claimed they did, and that the addition about labour was helpful. You can be as frustrated and aggressive as you want about that, but this whole discussion could’ve been in agreement, you both appear to agree with each other on the meat of the politics.

Huh?

I mean… you are literally instead of discussing the politics of the UK, actively choosing to be antagonistic.

And antagonistic in a way that I have literally no idea what you’re even trying to say, beyond wildly thrashing into the void.

Sounds like they were just hoping things would at least improve, which means not get actively worse nor remain strictly the same, but does not mean things become absolutely good and fixed. You’re the one putting “fundamental changes to how things are run” as their claim.

I found their comment quite helpful, and the content of the addition that labour may not do much better was also useful and fit in the framework they gave.

I don’t think the aggression was warranted or helpful, and only served to stagnate the discussion.

The regulation appears to be based on the area of the plot, not the dimensions. By assigning explicitly annotated dimensions it can confuse the intended message more than using a goofy but useful analogy.

Because why solve trivial coding problem when experimental bad technology that won’t even work after a many fold increase in implementation time do trick?

As we all know, ai are the best and only solution to complex tasks such as rudimentary file management.

No AI are to this level, are a massive security risk, and none are “smart”.

pay if it’s worth it

It isn’t.

https://theconversation.com/just-stop-oil-do-radical-protests-turn-the-public-away-from-a-cause-heres-the-evidence-192901

Interesting! Thank you.

Neat that the dorsal plane bends, I could see that disagreeing with the body orientation planes

Honestly I was expecting far more downvotes. I posted the video with people like you in mind, who still can think critically are marks without the burden of misinformation and ideology. not being marks.

Ftfy

By the way, if you think you are not subject to ideology, I have several things to sell you.

For anyone else reading: everyone is subject to ideology. The moment you think you arent, that is when you are most trapped by it.

The point is to make them detectable so border patrol can find them.

Dorsal means towards the (anatomical) back, ventral means towards the ground. These are perpendicular to the dorsal plane, as frontwards is perpendicular to the frontal plane.

I’m unfamiliar with brain orientation so perhaps the tradition is a bit different!