dinklesplein

joined 4 years ago
[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago

is it over if i was somehow expecting to see destiny on this list

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 5 points 3 weeks ago

yeah, i mean if it makes you anxious then it clearly is worse for you! i don't want to come off as minimising your struggles, just that examination methods should probably be more flexible in general.

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 28 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

i'm not sure that i agree that oral exams are inherently bad, i just think they need to be taken with the instructor having a spirit of charitability and recognising that students can't remember every little detail. evidently this wasn't the case with you but the typical exam paper format isn't very good for neurodivergent students either in a very different way, like i'd always do awfully in exams by my standards so obviously i'd be more inclined to think that format is worse than oral.

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 11 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

with all due respect how do white people make tofu

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 5 points 3 weeks ago

i mean i thought marioslop would flop too and people still gaslit themselves into thinking it was a good movie so idk at this point. still probably, like, team 'minecraft will flop' purely because i feel like i haven't seen anyone sincerely say they thought the trailers were good but at the same time it's possible enough people just watch it regardless it succeeds.

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 45 points 1 month ago (4 children)

dunno if anyone saw but noahpinion finally outed himself as the bloodthirsty ghoul he is on twt recently

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

not being misogynistic is generally a good thing and it's more controllable on our end. this is a bit of an odd thing to suggest, other factors may play a part but that's not a good reason to not try crack down on such behaviour.

you could have an entirely different meaning of course but i think misguided seems to imply some sort of normative commitment here.

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

sorry, is this directed at me? because i don't see any issue with the changes.

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 23 points 1 month ago (18 children)

mario-thumbs-up based on the timing of this i feel like the gender demos survey had a hand in these measures being implemented too, right?

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago

hi it's me i'm that man! (not offline though)

[–] dinklesplein@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

if your concern was joker 2 would be capeshit then i can say pretty confidently that that's not very relevant to it. i think you should give it a try, i thought it was fine too.

 

"This whole saga makes me genuinely embarrassed to follow this stuff. I just want a sub that has an informed opinion on AI, this is worse than crypto bro bullshit."

"Every hype-man who posts vague tweets and hype posts should be ridiculed. Every clown who posts screenshots of said tweets on this sub should be ridiculed."

""AGI is coming out next year" - this sub for the last 4 years"

some self aware highlights.

 

Musk is suing OpenAI. Musk's legal teams' argument in two premises is:

  1. OpenAI's 'contract' as stated in their founding agreement was to make any AGI system for the benefit of humanity.
  2. GPT-4 is an AGI system ∴ OpenAI, by licensing GPT-4 exclusively to Microsoft, has effectively breached this agreement by making the first AGI system beholden to corporate interests. Musk's team also alleges that OpenAI is effectively an Microsoft subsidiary at the moment.

OpenAI deserves the lawsuits, but alleging that GPT-4 as a base model is anywhere close to AGI is probably not the angle to put it lightly.

Some other arguments:

OpenAI has comitted promissory estoppel by moving away from the open source non-profit model Musk initially invested in.

(This means that OpenAI has breached a promise enforceable by Law)

OpenAI has committed a breach of fiduciary duty by using Musk's funding on for-profit projects against the initial understanding of that funding's usage - letting Microsoft on OpenAI's Board of Directors and not open-sourcing GPT-4 are their examples of this.

(OpenAI had a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of their clients, which they failed)

OpenAI has engaged in unfair business practices by convincing Musk they would commit to the 'Founding Agreement'

(I think this is self explanatory)

DAMAGES

Musk wants:

A. Court to order OpenAI to follow their 'Founding Agreement' which means cutting the Microsoft connection and open sourcing.

B. A judicial ruling that GPT-4 constitutes AGI, and any followup models related to it.

C. Return of all money Musk invested into OpenAI that was spent on 'for-profit' projects.

D. General damages to be determined by court.

Personally, I think banging hard on the 'GPT-4 is AGI angle' is a really mistaken line of argument and it's a huge weakspot in their case. OpenAI can probably be sued for a lot of things, as we're seeing with NYT, so it's not like this is their only angle of approach. I want to see them get sued in court just in a vindictive sense, but I don't think this is how you do it.

view more: next ›