Well you could always just use the proper name. The cc license in question IS anti commercial. A great deal of ai is opens source and non commercial and to those cc is fair game. But if commercial is where you draw the line then envoking this license may do.

This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International)

Calling it “anti-ai” when its not removes power from your argument. Your invoking something that does not exit and linking to something seemingly unrelated.

Now the bigger question i have, have had since i have seen people do this.

Why is there still not an actual anti-ai license? Seems obvious that there is a need for it? I dont know much about how licenses are created but it strikes me as odd.

Well i understand its to combat ai from training on your comments right, maybe also to poison the data?

I just don’t see what taking a non relevant licensee and giving it a different name is doing to stop that. Trivial to filter stuff like this out in a dataset.

At best an individual data scraping company decides to honor it out of kindness. At worst people think that its a real license and copy it with a false sense of security.

Just FYI the license in your comment doesn’t actually exist and the creative commons license it links to does not mention AI anywhere.

I don’t like copyright laws, it feels like a very out of date and detrimental system in the online world….

That said, The licensing of outputs from a new model presumably carrying more weight while the same sites are littered with copyright trained models is absurdly ironic.

Either these should be equally protected or equally unprotected. I hope most people can agree on that.

Before privacy guides changed there was a spreadsheet with all providers, security details and wether or not they have ever complied to government requesting access.

If i recall correctly proton did not score very great. Disroot did very well on paper but was considered new and had yet to proof itself

Anyone know if this (updated) information still exists?

Its true i do worry about shit ai being plastered within our devices but if you cut through the marketing you see a whole mix of machine learning and ai is used under the hood.

Some of these tools like ms paint auto removing backgrounds. And personal assistant like siri talking more fluently does seem like an improvement.

I have no hopes for winfows rewind but even for that we must admit its not actually available yet. Neither is apple ai.

So we are simply assuming that all of the tools they may put in are bad based on some current stupid ideas that are explored.

I commend you for believing most people know the difference.

Sadly thats not my experience.

The reporting are big clickbait but that doesn’t mean there is nothing left to learn from the old touring tests.

I dont know what the goal was they had in mind. It could just as well be “testing how overhyped the touring tests is when manipulated tests are shared with the media”

I sincerely doubt it but i do give them benefits of the doubt.

There is no competition in science (or at least there shouldn’t be). You are subjectively disqualified from judging llm’s if you draw your conclusions on an obvious trap which you yourself have stated is beyond the scope of what it was programmed to do.

To clarify:

People seem to legit think the jury talks to the bot in real time and can ask about literally whatever they want.

Its rather insulting to the scientist that put a lot of thought into organizing a controlled environment to properly test defined criteria.

In a normal conversation sure.

In this kind Turing tests you may be disqualified as a jury for asking that question.

Good science demands controlled areas and defined goals. Everyone can organize a homebrew touring tests but there also real proper ones with fixed response times, lengths.

Some touring tests may even have a human pick the best of 5 to provide to the jury. There are so many possible variations depending on test criteria.

The touring test isn’t an arena where anything goes, most renditions have a strict set of rules on how questions must be asked and about what they can be about. Pretty sure the response times also have a fixed delay.

Scientists ain’t stupid. The touring test has been passed so many times news stopped covering it. (Till this click bait of course). The test has simply been made more difficult and cheat-proof as a result.

The public versions of the ais used in Turing tests usually have less computing power. The test itself is often also highly specific in what and how questions can be asked.

This hardly news because models have passed the test before and as a result the test is made more difficult. It says nothing about intelligence and only about the ability to convincingly simulate a human conversation.

Forced quite breaks of nothing instead of adpocalyps Is such an unironic wholesome idea. Our brains really need that more.

I have a ytdl script download my “subscriptions” automatically to my jellyfin media server and an invidious server for everything else.

Its already is a much nicer way to watch content right now.

Former head but active agent absolutely

And yet if you look at the technical details, between Google, Apple n Microsoft. This does seem to be the lesser evil for privacy.

Of course if you have like a degoogled fairphone il bow down to you but if you also have a windows pc you’re screwed either way.

I had no idea and i thought i was relatively up to date with new gen technology. I thought the foldable phones that came out where more an experimental proof of concept of the first instance of such technology but not that whole flexible panels where possible.

Even just the fact an oled display can be this thin is completely new to me.

Good luck with overpriced shipping :) but still for something i though was not yet possible its shockingly accessible.

Found them on amazon holy shit.

You’d think something like this would be major tech news, people have been talking about this tech for ages and a consensus for many is that it wasn’t impossible. (Look at all the crap foldable phones)

It’s objectively not cheap but it’s not expensive for such revolutionary tech.