free_bip

Genuine question here, why would you ask Fable to explain the difference between tusks and teeth? That's a task that can probably be handled by Haiku.

Luckily for you, as far as I can tell you don't have any concrete reason to fear having your repos taken down. Or at least I haven't been given any.

If the reason is more emotional than rational ("this feels like it's going to change more"), that's okay. Not everything needs to be governed by rigid rules. The Codeberg community knows that well. If in a few years your 100+ repos are still all fine and dandy to their rule set I'm sure they'd be happy to have you.

That seems like a completely different concern than what you originally stated? You're not worried about future policies, you're worried about the policy that was just passed.

And for what it's worth, it seems like they only care if the project is directly crypto related (e.g if you had a repo directly implementing a Monero node, that would probably not be allowed). If it's just a repo that implements a generic Cryptography concept that happens to be used both in crypto and elsewhere, then I don't see what the problem would be.

Again, the rules are judgement based. That means you can interact with the community to get clarification, and make your case that your project is worth keeping.

You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term.

Why is that? Is it because you believe there would be a new policy that would exclude your workflow? What would such a policy be? Do you really, reasonably believe it would be implemented "tomorrow"? Do you think adapting to such a policy would be unreasonable?

Or is it because you don't trust the judgement of the people enforcing these new rules?

If not one of the two, what is the reason?

The point I'm trying to make here is that this just sounds like a slippery slope argument. If you don't have a concrete reason to believe you won't be welcome "tomorrow" then my mind has not been changed.

I think this move by Codeberg is lowkey genius. They're trying to build a community based on a set of shared values. Those who disagree with those values are now self-selecting out of the Codeberg community, which is exactly the point of passing these kinds of resolutions.

The fact that the rule is open for interpretation means that they can effectively shut down malicious actors (i.e those who intentionally misrepresent the degree of AI assistance in writing their code) before they become a problem. It becomes an exercise in judgement instead of a potentially exploitable/loophole-able set of hard and fast rules.

There's no issue with this. This isn't the supreme court. Your income is not on the line. It's a code hosting repository. Go to GitHub if it bothers you.

Only time will tell if this set of values holds up. Personally, I think they will, and that the rules will end up being less strict than people are making them out to be, and that relatively few projects will be removed from the platform.

Yes it does. Biometric information (e.g a picture of your face) is famously not nearly as protected under the 4th amendment compared to things like passwords.

Anyone opting into this feature is effectively giving any US law enforcement (including ICE, local law enforcement, etc) free reign over their data.

HuggingFace does not decide who gets charged with crimes. Plenty of people go to prison for crimes the victim didn't want them prosecuted for.

Clearly, a violation of the CFAA has occurred. Now the question is, who should be prosecuted for it? (The answer "nobody" is trivially wrong and should not be considered.)

The reason this was "easy" is because the conjecture turned out to be false. If the collatz conjecture holds true (and most mathematicians seem to think it will), it will be much harder to prove than your average Erdos problem.

Right... So since it's a big problem, shouldn't we at least be considering it as a possibility so that we can minimize the impact?

Agreed. If I'm attending higher education as an adult, I expect to be treated as one. Laptops may be harmful to learning for some students, but may be extremely helpful for others. The university is not the one who gets to decide that - the adult paying absurd sums of money to attend the class is.

What does NYT's reporting on AI have to do with you? Why exactly is it "playing dirty"? And what about that justifies OpenAI lying to the court (which is a felony crime)?

It's pretty obvious this comment didn't come from a Canadian. Because if it was, you'd know that Palantir is elbow-deep in the Trump administration, the same one that has repeatedly threatened to annex Canada. That is not a threat to be taken lightly, and the Canadian public agrees, which is why the trump-opposing Liberal party is currently enjoying a parliamentary majority. A more relevant question would be "Why would anyone with Canada's interests in mind even consider Palantir in the first place?"

This Wikipedia article seems completely irrelevant to the quote you posted. They're clearly talking about commercial nuclear energy plants, not orphan sources from radiography and radiotherapy machines.

You're saying this like I would see that 5k in my bank account. If I'm 5% more productive that probably wouldn't even make it into annual review, let alone pay.

If a deal has been reached and the war with Iran is really over as Donald says it is, why is this necessary?

Yes, yes it is impossible. And I'm sure ChatGPT could easily tell you why.

That's weird, I can connect just fine over mullvad.

Or they could lay off some middle managers. If they blame the layoffs on AI the market might even reward them for it.

What an incredibly dismissive and nasty comment.

I didn't even know you could return clothes from most retailers. From online would make sense (you have no way of knowing if it'll fit right), but from a physical store you really don't have an excuse.

What makes you think infra in space is smart? How are you going to dissipate heat?

If you actually read the full text of the law, it states:

" "Biometric identifier” means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry. Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs, human biological samples, [...] "

So if it's just pictures of faces, then it's okay. If, however, at any point in the pipeline the actual facial geometry is calculated or stored, that might be a violation.

Unfortunately, no pricing or technical information has been released yet.

They can easily add this "individuality" in RLHF. The base model won't know, correct, but the final user-facing model very much can if that's what they so desire.

IMO the big news here is that they created effectively a drop-in replacement for the Leela Chess Zero model - which ended up outperforming the best existing LC0 model. Could make LC0 more competitive long term vs. stockfish if they choose to adopt the chessformer architecture.

I think they would most likely end up calling 911. I hope that Waymos only drive in locations with cellphone signal.

That's not what the previous comment is referring to. They're referring to false positives, i.e "Gemini did not generate this (or process it) yet it says SynthID confirmed"

Those are not the same as prediction markets

So it'll still raise at least 300 million? Sounds like a great thing to me. I dunno why you think it doesn't matter.