You’re winning an argument that no one is having with you, great job 👍
You didn’t respond to the substance of my comment. Links to paywalled articles are trivial to paste into a site like archive.is. Archive sites are taken down all the time, it makes no sense to provide them as the primary source of a link.
You didn’t really read or engage with any of my points, so I’ll ignore your lecture about misunderstanding.
Don’t put this on people posting links.
Use a browser extension if it’s personally important to you, or just paste the link in yourself. Archive sites go offline; they shouldn’t be primary link sources.
I would have upvoted this if it didn’t have a pointless tumblr caption on it.
How many people who post JS BAD memes could provide a single example of why it’s bad without looking it up?
The US left wing has a lot of great ideas and some really really terrible ones that are completely out of the mainstream.
That’s probably specific enough, right?
Replacement is just one application. What about generating entire performances? Can’t do it yet, but the data will be there when they figure it out.
The data is still going to be there when there’s cost effective AI tech…
Everyone is having a bad time, in different ways. It’s easy to notice things you personally relate to, and equally easy to overlook the many, many things that don’t resonate with you.
my wife left herI carefully posedmy wife’sa purse on a chair
tl;drsYou get to pick one.
And here’s where the mods turn to the camera with roguish smirks, because they weren’t necessarily bluffing.
You know, I’d love to read things that are written to be read, not something that reads like the storyboard to PCG’s video content for this item.
Nope sorry, Youtube gets punished for bad ad practices. You don’t get to pretend that the content creator is the victim of the ad-blocking user when YT controls the platform.
Americans who understand the first amendment will tell you that freedom of association is inseparable from freedom of expression. The government (plus its agents) is the only entity constrained by the First Amendment. Everyone else benefits from it, including certain instance owners who don’t want to associate with certain others.
That is certainly one perspective.
We’re all affected by how our respective governments were born, and grew up, or didn’t, or haven’t had the chance to.
Now, I get it. No one wants to feel like they actually voted for the conservative outcomes
This is projection. Can you conceive of someone with slightly different political values than yourself?
A half-measure at best, and you know it, because as with everything they do, we only have bipartisan support if the wealthy get the lion’s share of the money. That’s how it was with Obamacare and COVID relief. It’s what they do.
This is how you debate? “I’m right because politician bad”? Cite a source or two.
That totally matters in a country where marriage policies exist mostly at the state level
lol, with the small exceptions of my own tax bill and federal benefits.
and the Supreme Court has already admitted they’re gunning for gay marriage next.
Right…in which case federal recognition becomes critically important.
Confident doomsaying is always easy and popular on politics threads, and I just don’t buy it here. Before the 2022 midterms, commentators were just as confident that the economy (and inflation!) would hand the GOP a huge victory in Congress. Didn’t happen.
Biden’s done exactly what he said he would, which is to focus on and fight for laws and measures that have a chance of passing the US Congress. Hard to argue with his strategy.
On the economy:
Legislative record:
Hercule Poirot sat in his armchair, eyebrow raised as he read the peculiar Lemmy comment before him. His mustache twitched in amusement at the dramatic flair with which the analysis was presented. He admired the cleverness and relevance to the topic, but couldn’t shake a feeling of familiarity, as if he’d encountered a similar style of writing before.
The detective leaned back, his mind busy with the details concerning the case brought to him by an anonymous client. The client had claimed that the comment was generated by an LLM, an algorithmic language model, and sought Poirot’s expertise in evaluating the comment’s authenticity. It was a clever observation, but Poirot wondered if such a deduction could truly be made based on the content alone.
With a thoughtful stroke of his mustache, Poirot dissected the essence of the comment. He noted the grandiose language, the crafted phrases, and the lack of personal touch. It seemed constructed solely to impress, rather than convey genuine insight.
Poirot’s eyes scanned the room, landing on a shelf of books. He remembered a similar style of writing he’d come across in a novel written by a pretentious author. He retrieved the book, finding a passage that matched the tone of the Lemmy comment.
“Ah, mon ami,” Poirot muttered, smiling wryly. “It seems our LLM has not proven as original or interesting as they would have us believe.”
Poirot focused on the motive behind such an endeavor. Why would someone generate a comment that mimicked an author’s style? Perhaps an aspiring writer sought attention or validation.
With a triumphant glint, Poirot concluded that the motive behind the LLM’s imitation was simply a lack of creativity. The individual had chosen to emulate a well-known author’s style, believing it would garner attention.
“It seems, mon ami, that even in writing, some are tempted to take shortcuts,” Poirot mused, shaking his head. “But true brilliance lies not in imitation, but in the unique voice and perspective one brings to the table.”
With that, Hercule Poirot closed the book and returned it to its place on the shelf. He had solved the case of the Lemmy comment, revealing it to be an uninspiring endeavor. Poirot hoped that the aspiring writer behind the LLM would find their own voice and path of genuine creativity.
Or they both turn their backs on him and start pooping and eating at the same time.