• 0 Posts
  • 160 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 26th, 2023

help-circle
  • The code locker’s revised policy applies to Copilot Free, Pro, and Pro+ customers, as of April 24. Copilot Business and Copilot Enterprise users are exempt thanks to the terms of their contracts. Students and teachers who access Copilot will also be spared.

    All of the people in this thread are mad because they use slop code generation and now their slop is being used to train the slop generators.

    If they can take an entire repo because a contribution was tainted, that’s wrong. But otherwise I don’t care because it’s normal to use usage metrics to improve software and most importantly I don’t use AI so I don’t have anything for them to take.




  • I think you’re describing the plan, while I’m predicting the chimaera that will be born from conflicting politics. Billionaires have a plan but they aren’t gods. How will the country exist when we’re all sidelined and corporations import slaves? Will Palantir et al usher in a new paradigm? Is modern surveillance the eponymous straw on our backs? I just think that billionaires won’t get what they want, and that they hit very hard, and the result of those two facts implies we’re going to be beaten to within an inch of our lives.






  • That’s basically the AI definition given by DDG.

    But nobody uses the phrase like that. When Reagan said he was draining the swamp, and his followers repeated the line, what do you think they said? Probably some shit like, “let’s make the government more efficient.”

    Ok. Fine. That actually fits the phrase, even if Reagan was lying and giving corpos more control.

    But 40 years later when you ask someone what they mean by “drain the swamp” and they express ideas of… imprisoning Democrats, getting rid of the big Jews, dismantling the liberal deep state.

    People used “literally” sarcastically / for effect, and dictionaries added a new definition. So I think it’s fair to add a new definition for “drain the swamp” when people use it to mean “get rid of liberals.”


  • “If we assume X theorem is true, Y theorem is true, and lemma Z is true, then …”

    This is actually about our models and seeing their incompleteness in a new light, right? I don’t think starting from arbitrary axioms and then trying to build reality was about proving qualities about reality. Or am I wrong? Just seems like they’re using “simulated reality” as a way to talk about our models for reality. By constructing a “silly” argument about how we can’t possibly be in a matrix, they’re revealing just how much we’re still missing.