This just proves that Google’s AI is a cut above the rest!

It is true. What’s your upload speed? 😁

Fiber connections are synchronous. Meaning that the download speed is the same as the upload speed.

A gigabit fiber connection gives you 1 gigabit down and 1 gigabit up. A “gigabit” cable connection gives you 1.something gigabit down (it allows for spikes… Usually) and like 20-50 megabits upload.

Fiber ISPs may still limit your upload speeds but that’s not a limitation of the technology. It’s them oversubscribing their (back end) bandwidth.

Cable Internet really can’t give you gigabit uploads without dedicating half the available channels for that purpose and that would actually interfere with their ability to oversubscribe lines. It’s complicated… But just know that the DOCSIS standards are basically hacks (that will soon run into physical limitations that prevent them from providing more than 10gbs down) in comparison to fiber.

The DOCSIS 4.0 standard claims to be able to handle 10gbs down and 6gbs up realistically that’s never going to happen. Instead, cable companies will use it to give people 5gbs connections with 100 megabit uploads because they’re bastards.

Don’t go searching for those images! They’re fowl.

I use Kubuntu with KDE Connect. It lets me control everything using my phone 👍

I can play/pause whatever from my lock screen and can use my phone’s keyboard like it’s connected to the computer. It’s fantastic 👍

Dumb Restrictions on Media will always be Dumb Restrictions on Media.

We the people mostly won the DRM wars of the early 2000s. You do not want to legitimize that technology. It only helps big corporations/evil monopolies. It will never be a good thing for humanity as a whole.

I dunno. It’s better than their old, non-AI slop 🤷

Before, I didn’t really understand what they were trying to communicate. Now—thanks to AI—I know they weren’t really trying to communicate anything at all. They were just checking off a box 👍

My argument is that the LLM is just a tool. It’s up to the person that used that tool to check for copyright infringement. Not the maker of the tool.

Big company LLMs were trained on hundreds of millions of books. They’re using an algorithm that’s built on that training. To say that their output is somehow a derivative of hundreds of millions of works is true! However, how do you decide the amount you have to pay each author for that output? Because they don’t have to pay for the input; only the distribution matters.

My argument is that is far too diluted to matter. Far too many books were used to train it.

If you train an AI with Stephen King’s works and nothing else then yeah: Maybe you have a copyright argument to make when you distribute the output of that LLM. But even then, probably not because it’s not going to be that identical. It’ll just be similar. You can’t copyright a style.

Having said that, with the right prompt it would be easy to use that Stephen King LLM to violate his copyright. The point I’m making is that until someone actually does use such a prompt no copyright violation has occurred. Even then, until it is distributed publicly it really isn’t anything of consequence.

Challenges with the firmware: Mostly just learning embedded rust. It’s a bit different from regular rust because your don’t have access to std (which means no Vec!).

I remember having the hardest time just organizing the code. As in, I wanted to divide everything up into logical segments like, “LEDs”, “multiplexers”, “infrared”, etc and rust makes it kinda hard to do that without making everything it’s own little crate. Specifically, if you want your code to be device-agnostic. If you only care about your one board then it’s easy and doesn’t matter so much 🤷

I got the boards made at JLCPCB because they’re the cheapest and seemed good enough 🤷

I used kicad and wrote the firmware in Rust from scratch 👍

Watch a review of my keyboard 😄: https://youtu.be/iv6Rh8UNWlI

Nah just own it. You only need to kill this one person to obtain your shapeshifter dreams!

Admit it, “I’d say sorry but I’d still pull the trigger.” 😁

Center LEDs and custom 3D printed magnetic separation hall effect switches FTW!

https://imgur.com/gallery/DRS7yGZ

If we’re going pie in the sky I would want to see any models built on work they didn’t obtain permission for to be shut down.

I’m going to ask the tough question: Why?

Search engines work because they can download and store everyone’s copyrighted works without permission. If you take away that ability, we’d all lose the ability to search the Internet.

Copyright law lets you download whatever TF you want. It isn’t until you distribute said copyrighted material that you violate copyright law.

Before generative AI, Google screwed around internally with all those copyrighted works in dozens of different ways. They never asked permission from any of those copyright holders.

Why is that OK but doing the same with generative AI is not? I mean, really think about it! I’m not being ridiculous here, this is a serious distinction.

If OpenAI did all the same downloading of copyrighted content as Google and screwed around with it internally to train AI then never released a service to the public would that be different?

If I’m an artist that makes paintings and someone pays me to copy someone else’s copyrighted work. That’s on me to make sure I don’t do that. It’s not really the problem of the person that hired me to do it unless they distribute the work.

However, if I use a copier to copy a book then start selling or giving away those copies that’s my problem: I would’ve violated copyright law. However, is it Xerox’s problem? Did they do anything wrong by making a device that can copy books?

If you believe that it’s not Xerox’s problem then you’re on the side of the AI companies. Because those companies that make LLMs available to the public aren’t actually distributing copyrighted works. They are, however, providing a tool that can do that (sort of). Just like a copier.

If you paid someone to study a million books and write a novel in the style of some other author you have not violated any law. The same is true if you hire an artist to copy another artist’s style. So why is it illegal if an AI does it? Why is it wrong?

My argument is that there’s absolutely nothing illegal about it. They’re clearly not distributing copyrighted works. Not intentionally, anyway. That’s on the user. If someone constructs a prompt with the intention of copying something as closely as possible… To me, that is no different than walking up to a copier with a book. You’re using a general-purpose tool specifically to do something that’s potentially illegal.

So the real question is this: Do we treat generative AI like a copier or do we treat it like an artist?

If you’re just angry that AI is taking people’s jobs say that! Don’t beat around the bush with nonsense arguments about using works without permission… Because that’s how search engines (and many other things) work. When it comes to using copyrighted works, not everything requires consent.

That’s actually an unholey workaround! o contains 100% more hole than -.

LEGO Representative: “What’s the likelihood…”

This guy: “Never tell me the odds!”

One point three two emm bee 😁

With the ghost of solvents past.

“I didn’t vaccinate my kids and the one that lived turned out fine!”

I highly recommend not eating your keyboard. The most commonly-used macros probably taste like finger cheese.

He summons drinks and snacks.