This reminded me of that video when the covid lockdown caused the air to be so much cleaner that a mountain range could be seen from ~200km away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nazeeu3yZkg

This has got to be my biggest pet peeve among most news organizations. Most links on their articles just go back to an older page on their own website instead of pointing at the actual source.

Except, if we already had protections to prevent this from happening, then it wouldn’t have happened… Or at least the FDIC would have actually stepped in by now to pay everyone back and track down all the funds themselves.

I’ve never looked into Blockchain Capital much before, some quick search results show that they have invested in BlueSky (not enough to own/run the company from what I could find), but I don’t see anything that associates them with nazis.

How are you defining nazis here? What leads you to believe that Blockchain Capital is a nazi company? What links are there from Steve Banon to Blockchain Capital?

Do you just call the owners of any company a Nazi? How are you defining Nazis here?
Judging by your upvotes I must be out of the loop on something here.

I tried to look into this claim and all I found was a CEO that’s also a software dev Jay Graber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Graber (Nothing controversial that I could find in her posts at a cursory glance)

A software dev that worked on XMPP (Jeremy Miller): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremie_Miller

And the CEO and founder of TechDirt (Mike Masnick): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Masnick

What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?

Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?

This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/

Not a surprise considering Governor Hochul sabotaged the bill just before signing it:
https://odysee.com/governor-hochul-sabotages-ny-right-to

One of the major problems with Lemmy is that many posts get deleted and that nukes the comment section (which is where most of the answers will be).

I wish Lemmy deleted posts closer to how Reddit deletes posts - the post content should be deleted, but leave the comments alone.

Thanks! It’s a good read and I like the idea of a private cloud compute (PCC) system, but that doesn’t mention anywhere that ChatGPT will be running in that PCC system (if you were trying to imply that).

And while OpenAI could implement something similar to PCC, I haven’t seen them announce that anywhere either.

I’d say the proof is on Apple to show that it’s being done on-device or that all processing is done on iCloud servers.

You’re saying that OpenAI is just going to hand over their full ChatGPT model for Apple to set up on their own servers for free?

But from the article itself:

the partnership could burn extra money for OpenAI, because it pays Microsoft to host ChatGPT’s capabilities on its Azure cloud

I get it if they created a small version of their LLM to run locally, but I would expect Apple to pay a price even for that.

I think you may be confusing this ChatGPT integration with Apple’s own LLM that they’re working on… Again, from the linked article:

Still, Apple’s choice of ChatGPT as Apple’s first external AI integration has led to widespread misunderstanding, especially since Apple buried the lede about its own in-house LLM technology that powers its new “Apple Intelligence” platform.

What? No. I would rather use my own local LLM where the data never leaves my device. And if I had to submit anything to ChatGPT I would want it anonymized as much as possible.

Is Apple doing the right thing? Hard to say, any answer here will just be an opinion. There are pros and cons to this decision and that’s up to the end user to decide if the benefits of using ChatGPT are worth the cost of their data. I can see some useful use cases for this tech, and I don’t blame Apple for wanting to strike while the iron is hot.

There’s not much you can really do to strip out identifying data from prompts/requests made to ChatGPT. Any anonymization of that part of the data is on OpenAI to handle.
Apple can obfuscate which user is asking for what as well as specific location data, but if I’m using the LLM and I tell it to write up a report while including my full name in my prompt/request… that’s all going directly into OpenAIs servers and logs which they can eventually use to help refine/retrain their model at some point.

I’m sure you understand this, but anonymized data doesn’t mean it can’t be deanonymized. Given the right kind of data, or enough context they can figure out who you are fairly quickly.

Ex: You could “Anonymize” gps traces, but it would still show the house you live at and where you work unless you strip out a lot of the info.

http://androidpolice.com/strava-heatmaps-location-identity-doxxing-problem/

Now with LLMs, sure, you could “anonymize” which user said or asked for what… but if something identifying is sent in the request itself, it won’t be hard to deanonymize that data.

I think you’re confusing the word “corporate” with “capitalism”, they are not the same.

Edit: If you swap the word “capitalist” with “corporate” I completely agree with you.

Whether it’s “capitalist” or not doesn’t matter. You could have government owned/created apps that make dumb decisions as well.

At least with capitalism you have the option to go somewhere else when a dumb decision is made.

No one mentioned an alternative to capitalism and communism is the first that comes to mind.

Realistically what we have throughout the world (economically) is a mixture between capitalism and socialism. Some countries place more restrictions on corporations than other do. We already get that capitalism isn’t perfect, and I don’t think any realistically “perfect” systems exist.

So, if you’re going to make “capitalism is bad” comments, what are you proposing that is better than what most other countries are already using?

I’d be on board with it if we can show that it’s better.

Why does almost every post in Technology have some comment trying to bring up the “capitalism bad” topic in some way?
Are you trying to say that Communism would have done a better job?
We’ve already seen how that has played out a few times already.

This is why, in a lot of universities, they’re trying to teach you how to learn, not necessarily how you should think.

We need to be able to examine the claims for ourselves and learn what red flags look like.

And a lot of the time we mix up “facts” with “opinions”. Even when we are looking at facts, most of the time there are lies mixed with truth or conveniently forgotten truths. If we only get our information from a single source, or from biased sources, then we’re going to miss some key information.

That’s why it’s good to make sure that you look at any story (especially politicized ones) from different angles and sources even if you don’t agree with them.

Not only that but it can be enlightening to hear about a story from someone who’s much more intimately familiar with the subject themselves.

For example, whenever it comes to news stories about the Supreme Court, I like to look for commentary from lawyers such as Steve Lehto or Legal Eagle. You’ll find that they typically provide some very important context into why a particular decision was made that cuts through a lot of the outrage material that reporters push for clicks.