jchmrt

While it's true that most people in the Netherlands speak English (at some level), it's really not true that Dutch people prefer to speak to each other in English when everyone present speaks Dutch.

The fun thing about climate change is that it is never really too late to make a difference, since every reduction in emitted CO2 results in less warming (even if not in a perfectly linear fashion due to various feedback loops). This means that even when we've already locked in 2C, it is still worth preventing it from going to 2.5C.

So alarmism is good and necessary, we just need to make sure that we also need to take action based on it.

Just to be clear, studies also indicate that we will not realistically limit global heating to anything close to 1.5C, unless very drastic actions are taken immediately (actions on a level that would be seen as extremely radical by most people)

One of the criteria of the most often used definition of open source [0] is that the program is free to use and modify for all purposes. So a noncommercial license would not qualify as open source. This is also a requirement of the free software definition of the FSF, which is also often used to define free/open source.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

A possible scenadio might be that one day the user wants to log in to their other fastmail account, which they don't want to be linked to their main one in any way.

Obviously if you don't care about software freedom, libreboot is not for you. That does not detract from the goals of the project.

But of those benefits you mention, most are not in contradiction with a walkable neighbourhood. In my home town, most things are in walking and biking distance and we still have good public schools, lots of parks and safety. These things have nothing to do with cars, if you just make the choice to create them somewhere walkable.

The (A)GPL licenses were designed for user freedom, not developer freedom. That indeed means that some companies might not want to use it, because they dont want to give their users access to the code. But for the people who prefer this license, that's not an unintended consequence, but the whole point.

I'm no expert in this field, but as I understand it they trained a new GPT model from scratch to play Othello. So the prompts were simply the transcript of moves that came before.

I tried it on the you.com chatbot, which has access to search results of your query. Even though it was already spoiled by receiving a link to this thread in which the correct answer is literally listed, it still managed to come up with nonsense:

> The numbers appear to be arranged in an exponential pattern [1], where each number is approximately 2.3 times larger than the previous number. This pattern can be expressed as: n = 2.3^x, where n is the number and x is the index of the number. So for the numbers you provided, the pattern would be: 925 = 2.3^0 8642 = 2.3^2 37654 = 2.3^3 627418 = 2.3^4

Where [1] links to this very hackernews thread.

Just because some of its answers are logically coherent due to it following statistical patterns, does not mean that the model is reasoning. Reasoning implies some type of discipline which prevents nonsensible arguments (even in uncommon situations).

I think it's really problematic to use the word "reason" to describe what GPT does. As others have commented in this thread, GPT is a language model, which in no way reasons about anything it writes. It is simply writing whatever fits statistically to the prompt and context. Attributing reasoning or too much intelligence to this could prove quite dangerous.

I think the author means that count-words already existed, but only reported words and characters. Now it also reports the amount of sentences.

This question is clearly not relevant to the parent comment, since the linked tweet explicitly states that he would not ban this account as part of his commitment to free speech.

Why do you think GPT aced that? As far as I can tell from the code it sends in up to 10 guesses.

As far as I know, the algorithms used for these are in fact rule-based at this point, not neural networks. Which actually is not much better, since these systems are still propietary and black box. This is of course horrible for a functioning sense of justice, since the decisions made are now (partly) dependent on opaque decisions made by an algorithm of a company without any arguments you can contest or inspect. Furthermore, it has been shown that these algorithms frequently are racially biased in various ways.

Further reading: https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm...

Even if something so absurd would happen, the version of the code from just before the change to a new license would still be available under the GPLv3. So everyone who wouldn't agree with this change (which would presumably be everyone), could simply fork the code from that point and continue under the GPLv3.

The more realistic risk of a CLA on GPL'ed code is that the person in control would switch it to a more permissive license without the copyleft restrictions of the GPL. That would actually have a negative impact that others can't mitigate by forking (although with a fork you could of course again make any new code added to the project the original license again).

You keep asserting in this thread that most EU citizens want to get russian gas right now. This doesn't really correspond with what I perceive in my country or understand to be the case in the rest of the EU... Do you have any public polling to back this up and are you talking about any regions in the EU in particular?

> That is the issue here: people want to be able to sell their cards to other players, and now you need to build a mechanism that supports that correctly without becoming riled in the customer support issues.

I mean, if you put it like that it sounds as if the main advantage of the blockchain technology here is to offload responsibility for the inevitable issues that arise when people start trading for real money, such as scams or people regretting their purchases. But you're not actually solving these problems, you just gain the ability to point to the decentralized blockchain and claim there's nothing you can do about it.

But that argument doesn't really work, since you can upload someone else's GPL'd code on GitHub. So, it's not really possible for a random person uploading old code to GitHub, to give them new rights that the original authors hadn't granted.

So someone gives an argument which involves less than 1/4 of the world population merely having to change their consumption patterns by eating less meat, but still you see a better solution in 'cutting our population' by more than that? Wouldn't it be better to first focus on the lowest hanging fruit in which we tackle the problem by focussing on those people using a disproportionate amount of resources, instead of indiscriminately reducing the whole population? Not to mention the fact that there are not really any ways to quickly 'cut our pupulation' to this level short of killing people.

On Android, KOReader is able to do this (and free and open source). It can even reflow the text quite well so that it fits on a smaller display like a phone, if needed.

No it isn't of course, but that speaks for the argument that AGI is necessary for human-level translation :)

You're missing the point of the parent comment: GPT-3 can understand this idiom because it was trained on a corpus in which the context for this idiom already existed. If a new idiom would emerge, the system would not necessarily be able to handle it if it can not understand it from the context it was trained on. Therefore, a translating AI needs to be continuously updated.

I think the defeatist stance of 'it will go to China anyways is quite harmful. We should at least try to legislate useful things and enforce them for the common good. Besides, if companies want to avoid the legislation, sending the data to China will not do them much good: what they are doing will be just as illegal. And presumably companies recording video on EU soil can be regulated from the EU.