Well, people like to think that the fediverse is a genuine threat to Meta. And they like to feel they're doing important work defending it from Meta. So this will indeed pop up again, and again, and again.
Let's be fair, it's actually about all those people whose password is "password". But it is annoying to those who use 15-character random strings for passwords.
All that talk about "safety guardrails" is essentially a call against open source - when models are open, people can always remove them. That's the price of freedom. And we have seen time and time again how the benefits outweigh that price.
I wouldn't say there's a place to start. Once you start using programs that are configured through config files, learn about those config files in particular. Eventually, you might find that you prefer editing config files even for programs that have GUI settings - then you dive in more.
Regardless, once your config files become complex enough that you can't quickly rewrite them if necessary, start looking for a dotfiles manager, tracking them in git, backing them up, etc...
I don't know why you would expect a pattern-recognition engine to generate pseudo-random seeds, but the reason OpenAI disliked the prompt is that it caused GPT to start repeating itself, and this might cause it to start printing training data verbatim.
I generally back up the whole ~/.mozilla, and if I restore it after reinstall, everything is as it was. I've not tried isolating only the profile, seems pointlessly complicated.
Platforms. I don't believe that the people who create, or invest in, large internet platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Uber, Booking, Upwork, etc, have a natural or moral right of ownership to said platform. They should certainly receive returns on their investment - but they shouldn't have full operational control. Instead, as the platofrm grows, operational control should slowly transition to its users. eventually, they should have the final say on, in the case of YouTube. what content in acceptable, what procedures should be used to remove unacceptable content, how to appeal, etc.
Employment. One of the big issues I see is that employees are under someone's direct control for 1/3 of each day, and have to do what their boss says. And while they technically consented to that relationship, I don't see that consent as freely given, because for most people there isn't a viable alternative. This could be done through more worker cooperative, or encouraging freelancing. Even for people who decide to remain in traditional employment, they should have more official control than they do now.
AI. It seems many people here hate AI, but AI does have the potential for large productivity gains. And while, in the past, productivity gains have note resulted in less work, but rather higher GDP, we could always force the issue. After all, people did it ~100 years ago, and the economy didn't collapse because of that.
I haven't had that issue. I've heard that disabling adblockers resolves it. But people have said that spoofing their user agent to chrome also magically resolves it...
Many imagine future AI as an autonomous agent. I don't think anyone will release that. Instead, I expect to see a generative AI like GPT-4, however one that produces super-smart responses.
This will create a situation where the amount of computing resources someone has access to determines how much intelligence they can use. And the difference will be much bigger and more comprehensive than the difference between a genius and a normal human.
The reasoning given by GrayJay was that they don’t want a bunch of malware / ad filled clones running around, and I think that’s reasonable justification?
It's not.
That just hasn't been a problem for open source projects. I've been using almost only open source since like 2007, and I've never seen or heard about an ad-filled clone of some of them. Even if they are a thing, they've never reached me as a user.
If someone did want to distribute malware clones, they won't be stopped by a license restriction.
I didn’t come across any restrictions imposed on an end user to modify the app for their own needs or redistribution
It's by default that you can't redistribute modified versions. You need explicit permission to do so. Furthermore, that license is revocable. So let's say you invest a lot of time into making modifications - at any point, they can revoke the license, and you suddenly find yourself forbidden from distributing your modified version, too/
If/when Grayjay is transitioned to FOSS, I imagine it’ll be difficult for the community to maintain it due to the complexity…
That's not really relevant. There's no requirement in open source on how the projects are to be maintained.
the last thing someone like that would want on a personal project is loads of strangers contributing, bad actors ripping it off trying to make a quick buck, or even worse redistributing it with malware.
It's up to him whether he accepts strangers contributing. That has nothing to do with whether it's open source. If he didn't want contributions, he could disallow any pull requests on an open source software - or conversely, if there are people willing to contribute to a non-open-source project, there's theoretically nothing stopping that. Redistributing it with malware is not really a problem open-source projects have, and malware writers wouldn't care for the license anyway.
The only thing is would be the somewhat relevant would be making a quick buck part, but that's only been a problem for people using MIT/BSD license.
Finally, I'll never understand why people would want to name software after dental string...
Well, if you want me on Mastodon, implement a personalized recommendation feed. Until then, corporate platforms are the only option.