backgroundcow

joined 1 year ago
[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

"I've created this amazing program that more or less precisely mimics the response of a human to any question!"

"What if I ask it a question where humans are well known to apply all kinds of biases? Will it give a completely unbiased answer, like some kind of paragon of virtue?"

"No"

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

After checking that you can open port 53 udp yourself with, say, nc (which you tried), strace the binary that tries to open port 53 and fails, and find the system call that fails. You can compare it with an strace on nc to see how it differs.

If this doesn't clue you in (e.g., you see two attempts to listen to the same port...) Next step would be to find in the source code where it fails (look for the error message printout) and start adding diagnostic printouts before the failing system call and compile and run your edited version.

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

You are made of doesn't matter.

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Especially if the media is readily available elsewhere which is always the case for movies you "bought" digitally.

Except when they aren't. Especially if located outside the US, it is far from obvious that a given movie is available through another service.

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Refunding the sale price is still theft.

What did you lose in this theft?

Is there really nothing in your home right now you would be sad if someone took and just gave you the money you paid for it?

Even a digital copy of a movie may not be so easy to replace on the services I have access to.

Stores are not allowed to go home to people and take back the stuff they sold, even if they refund the price. Neither should a company that advertise "pay this price and own this movie" rather than "pay this price and rent it for an indeterminate time".

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The industrial military complex is built on funding for proxy wars with Russia. I wonder if the issue this time is that they are worried that with Russia directly involved instead of by proxy, this war may end up breaking Russia if they lose. Dismantling the perpetual antagonist that motivates further funding of the war machine is not in the interest of those who make money on wars.

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

This is my guess as well. They have been limiting new signups for the paid service for a long time, which must mean they are overloaded; and then it makes a lot of sense to just degrade the quality of GPT-4 so they can serve all paying users. I just wish there was a way to know the "quality level" the service is operating at.

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Was this around the time right after "custom GPTs" was introduced? I've seen posts since basically the beginning of ChatGPT claming it got stupid and thinking it was just confirmation bias. But somewhere around that point I felt a shift myself in GPT4:s ability to program; where it before found clever solutions to difficult problems, it now often struggles with basics.

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

What are you talking about? Amazon's digital video purchases don't require any monthly access fee. He paid £5.99 with the idea that he'll get to keep it indefinitely, just like a physical DVD. I don't get why you think it is ok for a seller to revert the sale of a digital item at any time for just the purchase price + £5 but (I presume?) not other sales?

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Are you fine with me taking anything from your home as long as I pay you the purchase price + £5? Some of us assign a greater value to some of the things we own than the purchase price.

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

It's because the licence holder of the movie decided Amazon can't show it anymore. Perhaps they were asking Amazon to pay a high fee and it wants worth it.

I get that this is what the license holder wants. But, why can't we just put into law that a license is not needed for a company to host, retransmit and play copyrighted media on behalf of a user once the license holder has been compensated as agreed for a sale?

[–] backgroundcow@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." // Carl Sagan.

view more: next ›