If you own something then you are responsible for it. The contrapositive of this, which logically follows from it, is: “If you aren’t responsible for something then you don’t own it.”

By its own argument, OpenAI does not own its AI agents. It must therefore be selling or leasing them to their customers, not granting a license to them. If I have ownership or a lease for something, I have possession of it. Since I do not have possession of an AI agent, I cannot be owning or leasing it.

It also does not square with their business model, therefore it must not be how they conduct their business. Their own behaviour betrays their argument.

QED.

I always have to look to see whether I’m in /c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world or /c/adhd@lemmy.world

I mean, I know you’re not going for a complete list but might I add some of the classics (Canada has always punched above its weight):

• Dan Akyroyd - Ottawa, ON
• John Candy - Newmarket, ON, RIP
• Alex Trebek - Sudbury, ON, RIP
• Catherine O’Hara - Toronto, ON, RIP
• Rick Moranis - Toronto, ON
• Eugene Levy - Hamilton, ON
• Ivan Reitman - Raised in Toronto, ON, RIP
• Martin Short - Hamilton, ON
• Gordon Lightfoot - Orillia, ON, RIP
• Lorne Micheals - Toronto, ON
• Pamela Anderson - Ladysmith, BC
• Leslie Neilsen - Regina, SK, RIP
• Howie Mandel - Toronto, ON

Can anyone make out that signature and find the creator? It looks like “sillygautomireddy” to me, but searching that doesn’t come up with anything.

I agree with you on outcome, but not on method, and there’s a principle behind it.

Judges need to remain fair and judge the law fairly. Unfortunately in this case, that comes with a stupid outcome driven by stupid people. But it was the right outcome based on our system of laws. I think this battle is lost, but that doesn’t mean give up on the war. The goal should have always been: change the laws so cities can make their own decisions about bike lanes (or something like that, I’m not claiming to have the ultimate goal here).

We should take down Ford based on the battles that are beyond equivocation:

• Billions in unspent federal funding for healthcare
• The closed Science Centre: An Ontarian icon
• The grift for real estate developers
• Centralization of municipal powers
• etc.

Having read the initial ruling, I thought it was a relatively weak argument and the risk of reversal on appeal was moderately high. I’m not surprised at this.

I think the bigger issue here is the Ford government’s consistent centralization of municipal power. It’s honestly really scary. I’m pissed that Ontarians elected him for another term after the Science Centre debacle.

And obligatory: “jUsT oNe MoRe LaNe BrO!”

I will be sad if Brett Cannon doesn’t get a seat. He’s done so much to push Python packaging forward.

This is a very good point, have an upvote.

The maritime treaties are the ones that I assume the most countries have signed, because they rely on such old principles, but I didn’t go check details on this one.

EDIT: Damn it, you made me go down a Law of the Sea rabbit hole, what with your “facts”.

The US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS, you’re right. But it did both sign and ratify the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which guarantees the right of innocent passage, which is what is at issue here. Iran also signed this treaty, though never ratified.

Further, both the US and Iran signed UNCLOS, even though neither has ratified.

Further still, Oman, who is the other half of this agreement with Iran, has both signed and ratified UNCLOS.

The US also supported the definition of innocent passage in a 1989 joint statement with the USSR.

UNCLOS has specific enforcement mechanisms behind it. I don’t know enough detail to know what they are, but yes, it’s founded on an international treaty. My point was Iran wasn’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they got something in return: on UNCLOS specifically they get free passage for their own ships in others’ territorial waters. More broadly, they get the stability of the post-WWII international order.

The US has turned its back on that international order by attacking Iran. Therefore the incentive for Iran to participate in that order has greatly diminished.

If all international treaties are “playing nice”, then fine, they were playing nice. I prefer to see them as a mutually beneficial exchange. We’re getting dangerously close to “laws are just threats” territory though, and I think that moves us away from a conversation whose definitions are useful for dialogue.

I think it’s in reference to

But in the joke they’re smashing children, not pumpkins…

There has been a long-established principle of the law of the sea that allows free passage through things like the Strait of Hormuz. While this principle has been around since… I think the 1800s but I’m not 100% sure, its most recent incarnation is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

So Iran wasn’t “playing nice”, they were playing by the rules.

Donald Trump has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t care about the rules. By going to war with Iran, he then gives them permission to also defy the rules. Iran will say: “We’ll follow the rules when the US does”.

N.B. Yes, it’s really called “the law of the sea”, maritime law is also a thing but a different thing

This vastly underestimates how big and interconnected modern LLM networks are. They are 100s of GBs in size, and transmit GBs of data between layers 100s of times per second. Having to transmit any part of the intermediate state of an LLM over a 1 Gb/s link would degrade the performance of an LLM by over 1000x. Current top-of-the-line datacenter GPUs are running about 4 TB/s total memory bandwidth, a limit LLMs are already pushing up against.

The kind of clustering you’re talking about is being done: between multiple GPUs on the same machine. The slowdown of dropping to the measly 64 Gb/s speeds of the PCIe 5.0x16 bus is a huge performance hit and has to be done very carefully. The various parts of the computation are broken up and shuttled around.

It’s the combination of massively-parallel compute (in the GPU cores) and insanely-fast, fully interconnected RAM that makes generative AI possible. The load characteristics aren’t conducive to parallelization.

You could donate $8/month to GrapheneOS… 😉

That’s fair.

Perhaps the “could” in my comment is doing more work than you are comfortable with.

I largely agree with you, other than being unwilling to count chickens before they hatch. e.g. While I haven’t read it, from talking to some who have I understand that Jodie Wilson-Raybould’s memoir was pretty hard hitting.

She’s already got her next gig lined up, it has nothing to do with Canadian government, and she’s nearly 60. Who knows, maybe she’s hit her “fuck it” moment. Maybe not. I’m willing to wait until October to judge.

♫ Blooooooooooooom… blim bluuuuum ♫

I’m kind of meh on Freeland overall, but I think her perspective on the subject of the US could be very interesting given her experiences.

“Kill dash 9! No more CPU time!” — Monzy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fow7iUaKrq4

Ummm… those are unfortunately the same part. The 905-belt is historically quite conservative. It’s the suburbs, which is where (many) people live.