Who said I was supporting the genocide and the defense of it? I take the same approach as them in the letter. It’s an undeniable genocide and horrific, but the situation is most likely to get better under Harris, not Trump.

If agreeing with that letter is weaponizing my identity against solidarity with Palestine, what do you think of the letter writers?

As a brown person myself I want to know if you agree with the leaders or if you’re saying you know better than us. It’s hardly racist to wonder if we’re being patronized by people who claim to know better than us.

The only thing disgusting here is that you assume you’ve got a moral high ground and superiority over these Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian community leaders. I trust their opinion.

I’m tired of champagne socialists pretending to be all for progressive causes and then they act like they know better than us brown people and are our wiser saviors. As a brown person, that makes you no better than a Republican in my eyes. Stop using us as a cudgel and patronizing us instead of listening to us. Strip away your imperialist mindset and listen to AAPI people to try and win for once.

So, do you agree with these Muslim leaders, or are you saying you know better than them?

They should be required to change their name

paid for entirely by venture capital seed funding.

And stealing from other people’s works. Don’t forget that part

Well put.

I’m sure plenty of people would be happy to be a personal assistant for searching, summarizing, and compiling information, as long as they were adequately paid for it.

There is an easy answer to this, but it’s not being pursued by AI companies because it’ll make them less money, albeit totally ethically.

Make all LLM models free to use, regardless of sophistication, and be collaborative with sharing the algorithms. They don’t have to be open to everyone, but they can look at requests and grant them on merit without charging for it.

So how do they make money? How goes Google search make money? Advertisements. If you have a good, free product, advertisement space will follow. If it’s impossible to make an AI product while also properly compensating people for training material, then don’t make it a sold product. Use copyright training material freely to offer a free product with no premiums.

Copyright is a lesser evil compared to taking human labor and creativity for free to sell a product.

In some cases I’d argue, as an engineer, that having no calculator makes students better at advanced math and problem solving. It forces you to work with the variables and understand how to do the derivation. You learn a lot more manipulating the ideal gas formula as variables and then plugging in numbers at the end, versus adding numbers to start with. You start to implicitly understand the direct and inverse relationships with variables.

Plus, learning to directly use variables is very helpful for coding. And it makes problem solving much more of a focus. I once didn’t have enough time left in an exam to come to a final numerical answer, so I instead wrote out exactly what steps I would take to get the answer – which included doing some graphical solutions on a graphing calculator. I wrote how to use all the results, and I ended up with full credit for the question.

To me, that is the ultimate goal of math and problem solving education. The student should be able to describe how to solve the problem even without the tools to find the exact answer.

That’s a slippery slope fallacy. We can compensate the person with direct ownership without going through a chain of causality. We already do this when we buy goods and services.

I think the key thing in what you’re saying about AI is “fully open source… locally execute it on their own hardware”. Because if that’s the case, I actually don’t have any issues with how it uses IP or copyright. If it’s an open source and free to use model without any strings attached, I’m all for it using copyrighted material and ignoring IP restrictions.

My issue is with how OpenAI and other companies do it. If you’re going to sell a trained proprietary model, you don’t get to ignore copyright. That model only exists because it used the labor and creativity of other people – if the model is going to be sold, the people whose efforts went into it should get adequately compensated.

In the end, what will generative AI be – a free, open source tool, or a paid corporate product? That determines how copyrighted training material should be treated. Free and open source, it’s like a library. It’s a boon to the public. But paid and corporate, it’s just making undeserved money.

Funny enough, I think when we’re aligned on the nature and monetization of the AI model, we’re in agreement on copyright. Taking a picture of my turnips for yourself, or to create a larger creative project you sell? Sure. Taking a picture of my turnips to use in a corporation to churn out a product and charge for it? Give me my damn share.

Google doesn’t sell the search engine as a product.

Not to mention, a lot of museums have no photography rules.

AI is the capitalist dream. Exploit the labor and creativity of others without paying them a cent.

They’re someone else’s turnips though, not yours. If you’re going to make money selling pictures of them, don’t you think the person who grew the turnips deserves a fair share of the proceeds?

Or from another perspective, if the person who grew them requests payment in return for you to take pictures of them, and you don’t want to pay it – why don’t you go find other turnips? Or grow your own?

These LLMs are an end product of capitalism – exploiting other people’s labor and creativity without paying them so you can get rich.

I can’t make money without using OpenAI’s paid products for free.

Checkmate motherfucker

Actually, surprisingly not badly. US generals like Milley took precautions to prevent Trump from doing even more disastrous things. Military leadership is generally respectable.

Afghanistan may be among the most humanitarian deployments the US military has done. The infant mortality rate fell significantly while the US was there, and women had the freedom to go to school and participate in the economy without violent oppression.

Our mistake in Afghanistan was that we didn’t build a lasting change. We gave arms to the wrong people. We should’ve been training and arming the women to fight back and protect their democracy. Not men who were going to be fine either way.

The US military is very apolitical. They don’t get involved with campaigns or politics. I think it may actually be illegal for an active serviceman to make statements with any political leanings. Certainly in uniform I think.

So for them to say this much is actually a big deal.

Yeah for them to say this much is a big deal considering they like to stay out of this stuff. It’s pretty much a harsh repudiation coming from them.