LLM is a subset of ML, which is a subset of AI.

Just waiting for an IP lawsuit to happen there

LLM is a subset of AI

Me and my wife shared two years, twice.

And how does breast feeding work? Is it from the human tit or the horse tit?

I suppose that’s exactly what they should be teaching.

Waterfox

I checked out my closest two locations on there. They were both dumpsters… “Best to come after midnight”.

Not what I was expecting…

I think people don’t want specialised tools, they want one tool they can always have with them. We can see the decline of computer use (and literacy) as a consequence of this. Many young people don’t use computers much, if at all.

I would definitely call that selling my data. The recipient can now add that to my profile as an interest.

Also, Brave has really shitty features like redirecting referral codes.

Not this again… LLM is a subset of ML which is a subset of AI.

AI is very very broad and all of ML fits into it.

CheomeOS: Let Google silently start tracking your kids until they are old enough to sell all of that accumulated data.

How can you live with yourself?

I think you can zoom in most of the pages with ctrl+ +

It’s not a whoosh if you mention the possibility of them trolling

I don’t know if you guys are on purpose but it’s Fawkes. It would be amazing if three people really had different spellings of the same Guy…

It does though, their most profitable (as in profit margin) businesses areas are the subscription based services and charging.

https://www.energyandcapital.com/tesla-fsd/#%3A~%3Atext=This+would+result+in+approximately%2Ca+year+from+charging+services.

Mimic, perhaps inspired but neural nets in machine learning doesn’t work at all like real neural nets. They are just variables in a huge matrix multiplication.

FYI, I do have a Master’s degree in Machine Learning.

I disagree. Machines aren’t “learning”. You are anthropomorphising theem. They are storing the original works, just in a very convoluted way which makes it hard to know which works were used when generating a new one.

I tend to see it as they used “all the works” they trained on.

For the sake of argument, assume I could make an “AI” mesh together images but then only train it on two famous works of art. It would spit out a split screen of half the first one to the left and half of the other to the right. This would clearly be recognized as copying the original works but it would be a “new piece of art”, right?

What if we add more images? At some point it would just be a jumbled mess, but still consist wholly of copies of original art. It would just be harder to demonstrate.

Morally - not practically - is the sophistication of the AI in jumbling the images together really what should constitute fair use?