Would that not be 113?

🤦 indeed 😳 thanks. (edited)

(if you were, you'd be 113 next year.)

this will become true in just a couple of years from now, assuming you represent age as a base-six number. (4*6+5 == 2027-1998)

"Given they were trained on our data, it makes sense that it should be public commons – that way we all benefit from the processing of our data"

I wonder how many people besides the author of this article are upset solely about the profit-from-copyright-infringement aspect of automated plagiarism and bullshit generation, and thus would be satisfied by the models being made more widely available.

The inherent plagiarism aspect of LLMs seems far more offensive to me than the copyright infringement, but both of those problems pale in comparison to the effects on humanity of masses of people relying on bullshit generators with outputs that are convincingly-plausible-yet-totally-wrong (and/or subtly wrong) far more often than anyone notices.

I liked the author's earlier very-unlikely-to-be-met-demand activism last year better:

I just sent @OpenAI a cease and desist demanding they delete their GPT 3.5 and GPT 4 models in their entirety and remove all of my personal data from their training data sets before re-training in order to prevent #ChatGPT telling people I am dead.

...which at least yielded the amusingly misleading headline OpenAI ordered to delete ChatGPT over false death claims (it's technically true - a court didn't order it, but a guy who goes by the name "That One Privacy Guy" while blogging on linkedin did).

many items listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions are often presented as advice

this isn’t remotely how this meme is used lol

shoutout to the person who reported this post with "Reason: Bot meme, you can't even read it. whoever replies is a bot too" 😂

xkcd#2501:

the famous "This incident will be reported" error was briefly removed last year before being replaced with a less ominous version.

I'm disappointed in arstechnica for only supporting their provocative headline (Judge in US v. Google trial didn’t know if Firefox is a browser or search engine) with this vagueness in the article:

While Cavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Mehta even appeared briefly confused by some of the references to today's tech, unable to keep straight if Mozilla was a browser or a search engine. He also appeared unclear about how SEM works and struggled to understand the options for Microsoft to promote Bing ads outside of Google's SEM tools.

What did he actually say?!