Technically, “enforced pay it forward” is called credit. Your debt would then be “the amount you still have to pay forward”.

Of course, this defeats both the spirit and the purpose of a pay it forward scheme.

It’s not an article about LLMs not using dialects. In fact, they have learned said dialects and will use them if asked.

What they did was, ask the LLM to suggest adjectives associated with sentences - and it would associate more aggressive or negative adjectives with African dialect.

Seems like not a bias by AI models themselves, rather a reflection of the source material.

All (racial) bias in AI models is actually a reflection of the training data, not of the modelling.

It’s certainly good, I’m not arguing that. My point is, if the wine team is interested, they can fork the unmaintained project, and work on that. Eventually, people will switch over to the active fork. What Microsoft is doing, is helping the process along, and making it easier. So it’s good, and helpful - but not really a “donation” to winehq.

I guess it’s simply the framing: It was a not very actively maintained open source project. So they’ve decided to turn it over to a new maintainer. Calling that ‘donation’ is a bit pushing it

TesseraC+

And who hasn’t contributed any code to this particular repo (according to github insights).

The biggest issue is that there isn’t a universal agreement on what causes harm. There is agreement on the basics - murder, violence, etc - but they’re already illegal anyways, no need to ban them by license.

upcoming EU AI Act that regulates open source systems differently, creating an urgent need for practical openness assessment

So when they say “openness” they do put it in the context of open source rather accessibility.

Because FOSS shouldn’t add burdens. You publish your work and let everyone else use it. That shouldn’t add extra obligations on you. Usually, you’d also write some docs - after all, without them nobody will know how to use your program, so why bother publishing - but it shouldn’t be an obligation. Make it easy for people to open up their code without this attaching strings.

Documentation is nice, but it’s kind of different thing that open source: a program can be open and undocumented, or closed but well documented - and I don’t see why we’d want it different for models.

A bunch of these columns are outright absurd TBH, to the extend I’m not sure the author really knows what FOSS is about. What’s open API access even supposed to be - API access is closed by definition.

Also there has never been a requirement that open source software needs to be documented - and for good reason - so I’m not a fan of the documentation column as well.

I’m confused… Aren’t HOA reps elected by the people living in the HOA? And generally, democracy should work better on a local level where people know each other, not worse… So why do they fail so bad?

15 hours for what period of time? The article mentions they’d refill in two days…

I like the idea, but I really hate that they’ve hardcoded the provider.

I’m somewhat skeptical. What if LetsEncrypt decided to misbehave tomorrow? Would the browsers have the guts to shut it down and break all sites using it?

It seems to me like a MITM hacker can just redirect all requests to a Blockchain node towards their malicious node.

Actually, that’s not quite as clear.

The conventional wisdom used to be, (normal) porn makes people more likely to commit sexual abuse (in general). Then scientists decided to look into that. Slowly, over time, they’ve become more and more convinced that (normal) porn availability in fact reduces sexual assault.

I don’t see an obvious reason why it should be different in case of CP, now that it can be generated.

I see there an access violation…

Because it’s not a very easy case. In fact, there is no real case.

1. It’s not just a stretch, but a huge leap, to claim that using “he” or “she” counts as “instruction […] on sexual orientation or gender identity”.
2. And even if you did manage that, you also have to argue that it’s also “not age appropriate”.
3. And if you managed that as well somehow, you have the problem that judges can take into account things like the intent of the lawmakers, and what’s reasonable, not just the raw text of the law.

Because judges are people, not robots mindlessly applying legislation. To succeed in such case you need the judges on the trial and all appeals to all decide to maliciously comply with the law.

You obviously consented that your data can be shared with all Lemmy/Fediverse instances federated with yours, and they can distribute it to Lemmy/Fediverse users - because that’s the basic premise of Lemmy.

Now, I can host a Lemmy instances of my own and get all your posts that way. No need to bother buying them.