The standard library is where project go to die.

Computer programming, regardless of language, is hard. The computer does exactly what you tell it to.

…and people worry about the name of a git branch.

I don’t view free-use models as open-source. Open-source means I can rebuild it from scratch and I can’t because I don’t know what the training data is, or have access to it.

The scale is the difference and who is harmed.

Billion dollar company losing $100. Who cares?!

Billion dollar company stealing from all artists in the world. We care.

Points 2 and 3. Basically make restrictions on normal user accounts which are fine for humans but that will make bots swear and curse.

Unless you mean “what should the registration process be” I think API keys via a user account would do.

…but if they don’t know I expect them to say so. An LLM isn’t trustworthy until it says “I don’t know”.

Exactly the reason I suggest it.

Is that an armadillo? Forgetting how my own code works is my forte.

An LLMs “intent” is always to give you a plausible response even if it doesn’t have the “knowledge”. The same behaviour in a human would be classed as lying IMHO.

1. Make bot accounts a separate type of account so legitimate bots don’t appear as users. These can’t vote, are filtered out of post counts and users can be presented with more filtering option for them. Bot accounts are clearly marked.

2. Heavily rate limit any API that enables posting to a normal user account.

3. Make having a bot on a human user account bannable offence and enforce it strongly.

Agreed, It wouldn’t be a good thing. However it’s their own failures and mismanagement that are causing it.

It’s certainly arguable that the algorithm constitutes an editorial process and so that opens them up to libel laws and to liability.

Fair point.

Stupid sharks loose their teeth, not their fins that actually do the work.

Errr…wat!!!

The shark dies either way.

Under what law?

UK currently holds the people that post things liable for their own words. X, the platform, just relays what is said. Same as Lemmy. Same as Mastodon.

If you ban X I don’t see why those other platforms wouldn’t be next.

Now should people/organisations/companies leave X? Absolutely! Evacuate like it’s a house of fire. Should it be shut down by legal means? No.

Oh, “incident post-mortem” was ambiguous. I read “Incident that happened after death” not “analysis after incident”.

I thought OP had a necrophiliac blowjob fantasy.

With batteries that would have a multi-day cycle like these ones, you’re going to be trying to flatten out the demand curve (and supply, but the two are related).

The US generates 4.2 PWh a year, and so averages a consumption rate of about 480GW. So, in an ideal system we’d only need this level of generation capacity and if it was higher sometimes and lower others the batteries would smooth it all out.

I’m going to take your 560GW figure as representative of normal demand above the 480GW average. I’ll say half of every day is 80GW above average (when we’d be draining batteries) and half is 80GW below (when we’d be charging). The real curves are much more nuanced, but we’re establishing context. 80GW for 12 hours is 960GWh, so let’s call it 1TWh of battery capacity needed for the whole USA to smooth out a day.

That’s 117 of these installation, which frankly I find amazing that it’s so low.

Right, so it makes no sense anywhere else.

Protect it, sure, but don’t remove it. It’s location is part of the art.

Training data is the source. Not the 20 lines of python that get supplied with a model.