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/

When you fail the Captcha test… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UymlSE7ax1o

Woah, I wish I had known about this sooner. Thanks!

What economic concept are you proposing that’s better than the current systems in place?

At least government regulations can help keep capitalism in check, but taking that too far leads to monopolies and dictatorships.

Most of those videos are also found on YouTube. I would expect that you don’t see those videos suggested to you because the algorithm has learned what you like to watch.

If you open up YouTube with a VPN and in a private tab you’ll likely get search results that include a mix from both the right and the left.

I’d rather not link to them, but from the ones you circled, these are the videos that I found on YouTube while doing a quick search:

• The Babylon Bee video
• The Paris Olympics opening ceremony video
• The Assassins Creed video

Now please excuse me as I purge my history…

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.

Imagine a scale, on one end is a market economy where the government does not regulate it in any way, and does not own any part of it in any way. This is pure capitalism/laissez fair capitalism, whatever you want to call it. And you are correct, it does not exist today in any country (and that’s a good thing in my opinion).

On the other end of that scale would be an economy that is completely controlled/owned/regulated by the government (for example, communism).

In economic terms, every country falls on that scale with some balance between a completely free market economy and how much regulation they impose as well as what kind of industries they control/own.

If someone is going to blame capitalism for “ruining everything” they are basically asking for a market system where everything is controlled/owned by the government. Where monopolies are rampant, and the citizens have no choice except for what the government or dictatorship has decided. In my opinion, this is also a bad choice.

If I am wrong about what they are asking for, feel free to point out the economy of a country that they are saying we should follow. In other words, if not capitalism, what are you asking for?

America doesn’t have a pure capitalist economy.

A pure capitalist economy would have a free market system with no government intervention.

Almost every country has a mix between capitalism and socialism for their economies.

A pure capitalist economy is terrible just as much as a pure socialist economy would be terrible.
The trick is finding the right balance between the two.

Then it’s a good thing that no countries have pure capitalism for their economy.

We need regulation on corporations to keep them in check.

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.

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.

Lemmy is definitely an echo chamber, but I agree that it’s not necessarily a bad thing as long as we recognize it for what it is. There are a large number of people out there that have very different opinions than the majority of users on this platform, we need to keep things respectful even in our disagreements with them instead of tearing them down for their opinions.