Ah! So you consider that every single restriction a country applies makes it authoritarian. Yeah, I don't think you understand authoritarianism, and in today's context, that's dangerous.

But I won't lose sleep over it!

This shows me you don't work anywhere near software. It is not as easy as you think it is.

I find it weird that you're making what seems to me to be a strawman argument about "burdening (mostly) small developers," as I'd say they are mostly not the ones trying to do this bullshit where they try to retroactively destroy art and culture because it stops being profitable enough. Indie studios typically don't design their games to use publisher-operated servers with ongoing costs attached in the first place, let alone to self-destruct when they shut off!

Releasing source code isn't without extra work. My point is, unless you make sure to specifically target the companies abusing gamers, you're going to mainly hurt the part of the industry that is not the problem.

This would be the only type creative work that would be burdened like this.

I find it paradoxical that we're trying to save the gaming industry by burdening (mostly) small developers. Larger studio will no longer be able to abuse the system, but complying will be easy for them.

For indies and small to medium studios though? They struggle enough as it is. Adding the burden of compliance on top is not a great idea.

If we could legally categorize studios in a meaningful way, and therefore target the big ones and leave indies alone, I would support such an idea.

I'm not sure we define unpredictable in the same way. I mean not being able to rely on a continuous source of power (batteries mitigate but don't solve this issue) is problematic.

I am not sure if you mean it that way, but I will take this comment as a good joke!

It is much faster to build nuclear power plants that can cover a country's needs than to fully transition said country to renewable.

It's expensive upfront. But it is cheap to operate afterwards, and cost efficient to renew. Look at France.

Germany made a major, major mistake when then phased out of nuclear energy.

We have uranium in Europe. We just don't exploit it. But even if we did not, there is plenty of countries in the world exporting uranium, on all continents. It's much less of a strategic issue than relying on rare materials for renewable, or on gas/oil.

Then the 2A is obsolete and needs to be amended out. At least the gun violence issue will see some positive.

That doesn't answer the question you quoted.

Of course the "understanding" of an LLM is limited. Because the entire technology is new, and it's far from being anywhere close to being able to understand to the level of a human.

But I disagree with your understanding of how an LLM works. At its lower level, it's a bunch on connected artifical neurons, not that different from a human brain. Now please don't read this as me saying it's as good as a human brain. It's definitely not, but its inner workings are not so far. As a matter of fact, there is active effort to make artificial neurons behave as close as possible to a human neuron.

If it was just statistics, it wouldn't be so difficult to look at the trained model and identify what does what. But just like the human brain, it is incredidbly difficult to understand that. We just have a general idea.

So it does understand, to a limited extent. Just like a human, it won't understand what it hasn't been exposed to. And unlike a human, it is exposed to a very limited set of data.

You're putting the difference between a human's "understanding" and an LLM's "understanding" in the meaning of the word "understanding", which is just a shortcut to say that they can't be compared. The actual difference is in the scope of understanding.

A lot of the efforts in the AI fields gravitate around imitating a human brain. Which makes sense, as it is the only thing we know that is capable of doing what we want an AI to do. LLMs are no different, but their scope is limited.

They are talking at a technical level only on one side of the comparison. It makes the entire discussion pointless. If you're going to compare the understanding of a neural network and the understanding of a human brain, you have to go into depth on both sides.

Mysticism? Lmao. Where? Do you know what the word means?

As much of a good idea as this is, I'm not sure a NYC-centric local news has its place on news@lemmy.world

As in, this really doesn't matter for most of the world.