pyuser583

Open source was never about doing stuff for free - at least not originally.

It’s about the definition of ownership. What does it mean to own a program?

When you distribute the program, you must also distribute the code for it. That’s open source.

How does this compare to the conspiracy theories floating around?

I’ve been hearing something like this from very disreputable sources.

That’s confusing because I was taught whether something is vowel or consonant is the spoken, not written, truth.

“Vampires pretending to be humans pretending to be vampires.”

Right but they might be incredibly interested in learning about them.

They just copy humans. Thats it. So if it’s the sort of thing a human finds interesting…

There’s no efficient way to do anything with homomorphic encryption.

What worries me is the non-frontier models, which is what the frontier models eventually become.

The small open models are getting better and better too.

And why worry so much about a frontier models - own weights. The model doesn’t - actually don’t quote me on that, maybe it does.

If a model does something sneaky, it could easily grab the weights for a small model and run it on foreign, compromised infrastructure.

AI virus’ are a thing of the future, but not a sci-fi future, and real one.

Maybe one reason it’s so scary is the murky origin of COVID-19.

Silicon Valley: “I’m not saying we should murder the competition, because that would be illegal. But is there some way we could … well .. maybe … hmm … I’m sure you’ll think of something!”

I would love to move to Vienna. Really, I’d sell my house and go right now if I could.

I can’t. Immigration and language barriers alone would prevent (even though I have family there).

My point is just that Vienna doesn’t have to deal with tons of people constantly showing up.

I’ve never known a security team to be in the position to say “no.” The role of security teams vary a lot from one organization to another.

But generally they can make you aware of the tradeoffs you are making, or serve as a kind of quality control that generally does not want to be asked questions.

Regulatory teams are about external compliance. That’s different from “chief ethicist.”

It’s a little unclear what this person was doing. But ensuring compliance with government regulations was probably not their core function.

For a second, I thought Hepatitis C was some 1980s C dialect that had memory safety issues.

Always tempted, but never enough.

> The Hague district court ordered Shell in 2021 to cut its emissions by 45% by 2030. The company dropped Royal Dutch from its name and moved its headquarters to London the following year

Is that a win?

Ok see what they’re doing - they’re taking a position that sounds (and mostly is) horrible. But they putting a poison pill for their opponents to consume: HIV patients have to work.

Thats common sense. People with HIV are usually able to work, and usually not terminally ill in the typical sense.

There are already comments defending the silly idea of HIV patients being excluded from work expectations: “if that’s the cost of a social safety net …”

That’s not the cost of a social safety net anywhere else in the world.

The current administration isn’t stupid. They know how get their opponents to freak out and say stupid things, and every stupid thing they say outweighs 100 reasonable things.

Be careful: work requirements are a mine field of helpfulness, good governance, and cruelty.

Oh wow so that lets them honestly say they have the same value as other shares?

This is strange - I work in insurance, and you really aren’t allowed to do that after the policy is signed. Or at least it’s very tightly controlled and limited to straight up fraud.

Me too! I’ve seen such good come from these sorts of programs!

I didn’t want to mentioned it my initial post, but these sorts of programs seem a happy combination of keeping costs down and maximizing autonomy, while focusing on full-time on mental illness.

Some is these are technically “in-patient” at home programs, which are growing in popularity in all fields on medicine.

But they’re not appropriate all the time, and I don’t want to “recommend” them. Talk to your doctor.

Sadly it seems these sorts of programs are simply unavailable in much of the country.

Both trickle down, right?

Longfellow, and that’s a hill I’d die on. Or Shakespeare; I’d die on that hill too.

I’ve been through this situation with family members. I understand the frustration and agony.

I also understand the hesitancy to pay for two months at a “retreat-like inpatient psychiatric facility.”

In publicly funded system, it’s likely facilities like this would not exist or would be strictly private pay.

I’m not aware of any country that makes such a thing available on short notice like this.

I also understand the frustration, as often times facilities like this are all that exist in terms of medium-term care. And often times some of their services are at least formally in-network.

The understanding is you pay for it by selling your house.

We’ve been tempted to do this (sell our house), but been advised against it - but the reasoning in our case is patient specific.

I wish insurance was clearer about what covered and what isn’t. I wish we had more mainstream (not retreat-like) medium term care places.

Maybe I’m misreading the phrase retreat-like.

But id this isn’t something a public system would pay for, it seems inappropriate to blame a private system to not pay for it, unless it’s clearly in the wording.

Regardless, mental health care in America stinks, and you can always argue over the details.

The I do that it starts acting like a jerk.

I asked Fable to verify and it absolutely freaked out!

I have no idea what any of this stuff even means, but my AI thinks I’m a legend level mathematician!

Wait I read the memo - it said “duty of care.” That’s powerful rhetoric but really narrow and well defined legalese.

I checked, and Texas police only have a duty of care in narrow situations: if someone requires emergency medical care, they must call an ambulance; if they are driving an emergency vehicle, they must do so safely.

That’s about it. There’s no “general duty of care” obligation.

Maybe they’re just using scary sounding language, or maybe this narrow clause is being interpreted to grant the police much larger powers.

But “duty of care” is usually intended to hold someone accountable.

Recycling an object almost always means destroying it.

I think you intended to respond to a different comment. This is the one about Madison Square Gardens tracking database.

The first paragraph does not mention guns. Madison Square Gardens is not a club. And, yes, it is in NYC.

New York City specifically has laws that require establishments to admit journalists and critics.

Civil liberties come into play. I can discriminate based on race or sex in who I allow into my house, but not my storefront.

Some place have straight up public accolades requirements - if it’s open to the public, it has to be open to the public.

That’s not true at all. There are many rules affecting public establishments, including privately owned ones.

Your house is your house, but once you establish a venue open to the general public, you have to follow rules.

The child is mentally ill and being treated clinically. Medication, therapy, etc. I’d rather not go too into the clinical details, because I’m not an expert, I’m a parent.

Roughly they are having difficulty with emotional regulation and processing previous trauma.

They’ve attended treatment camps in the past - which were very positive exercises for them. The approach to the internet at these camps is almost exactly what I am proposing: white lists and immutable history. They have to brew their own software but it’s done. I don’t see why it can’t be offered more widely.

Speaking more broadly, what controls do you think parents should have over adolescent Internet viewing?

Keep in mind most of the really bad stuff is on mixed content domains . Nobody builds a “watch-monkeys-die.com” website. They build a watchMonkeysDie tumblr or subreddit.

My case is not the best example because of the legit mental health concerns. But the principals are the same. As a parent I have decided my child needs granular access to the internet - how does that happen?

Ok so it’s basically a political startup.

It sounds like once the party gets actual influence, its real funding will be determined by the Swedish people.

Doesn’t this make the situation less harmful, or at least fundamentally different from say Elon Musk?