I like that you’re complaining about gaslighting whilst literally gaslighting me about my intentions. Just stop. I’m going to block you now anyway, for your own good more than mine.
People disagreeing with you and telling you your meme is shit is not psychological abuse, and it’s objectively fucking insane to claim it is.
Every reply you make like this literally just further reinforces and strengthens my point.
You’re not mentally suited for social media. Just stop, your mental health will thank me.
Just kinda proves my point, tbh. See previous reply.
Dude. Touch fucking grass and delete your account. Clearly you don’t have the mental fortitude to deal with social media without having some kind of break down.
This isn’t an insult, this is genuine advice. Getting this upset over the reception of a meme you posted is neither normal nor healthy.
I get this irrationally upset when I do badly at online competitive games. And that’s why I decided to stop playing them completely years ago. Maybe you should make a similar decision about posting on social media.
I’ve directly answered every single comment you made. Every single one. You’re literally just making shit up now. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith, and I’m not going to engage with you anymore. You’ve notably also yourself provided ZERO sources for any of your claims that disclaiment would’ve been the wrong choice. Your literal only source is “they didn’t chose it, and they couldn’t possibly have been wrong”. According to that dumb ass logic, expert financial analysts at Blockbuster deciding to not buy Netflix must’ve been the right decision.
Come back when you’ve learned to argue at a level above a C- high school student.
~~How the fuck can you people sleep at night while treating others like this?~
Dude. You’re reacting like someone murdered your mother to people down voting your meme, that’s not normal. Go touch grass.
You posted a link to a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t mention the arguments you made and just called it a “contemporary source”. I can’t take you seriously anymore, you’re arguing on the level of a C- high school student.
You’ve also literally not provided a single direct counter to ANYTHING I’ve said. Every single time I’ve pointed out something you said is wrong, instead of arguing you’re right, you just moved on a to a new argument. Until you ran out, and posted a generic milk toast response about reading a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t even mention the word “disclaim” or patent law, and only talks about the reasoning for making the patent public, not for choosing donation to a university over disclaimment. And then proceded to call the Wikipedia paragraph a contemporary source.
Also, half the arguments I made have nothing to do with specific patent law, they’re just objective facts, like that a university has no incentive to defend a patent they don’t want to enforce, beyond altruism, which exists equally as incentive to defend a disclaimed patent. That’s not a legal arguement, that’s an objective fact. Just like the fact that at no point in history has any PTO ever required a personal connection/patent to prior art to contest a new patent, because that would be dumb as fuck. It would literally mean that if the original inventor of a publicly known, unpatented/disclaimed invention can’t be bothered with the legal effort of defending it (or, ya know, died), there would be nothing stopping someone else from getting and inforcing the patent.
You were arguing just as vehemently about this, with just as much certainty, before that comment, which weirdly just happened to appear when you ran out of arguements.
Just a weird, coincidence I’m sure.
No it doesn’t. They’re explicitly NOT enforcing the patent, they have no incentive to defend it based on the patent being valid. They could just as easily sign a contract with the original inventor, promising to challenge attempts at repatenting the idea. The only reason validity of the patent would make a difference to their motivation, is if they plan on eventualyl enfocing it.
Yes there is. Anyone can contest a patent based on prior art existing, you don’t need any personal relation to the prior art, and having one doesn’t strengthen your legal case. The university would have identical legal power to contest the new patent, on basis of the existing disclaimed patent.
That logic applies identically to a valid patent. For the issues you mention, there is no distinction between the patent being filed at the PTO and still valid, or being filled at the PTO and disclaimed. In terms of the enforcibility, and patentability of a ““new”” inventions with prior art, there is no legal distinction whatsoever between the prior art being a disclaimed or a valid patent, so I don’t think that’s a valid reason to not disclaim it.
Anyone who wants to repatent the process and harass people using it, would have an equally hard/easy time doing so, if the patent is disclaimed or valid.
The only real legal distinction between a disclaimed and valid patent is that the orignal patent holder can’t enforce the disclaimed one. And since that was the intended goal here, disclaimment feels like the obvious best choice.
Pretty sure the entire reply is supposed to be satirising the dumb ass linked in culture, I very much doubt aynthing in the reply is genuined.
What a dumb ass argument. Accordings to Al Quadas rules of engagement, the twin towers were a legitimate military target.
You don’t just get to decide yourself what counts at legitimate target, that’s not how any of this works.
So if I break my arm, and am in incredible pain, I need to first pop by my GP to get a referral, or pay 100€ if I go straight to A&E ?
I feel like needing a referral to got to Accident and Emergencies kinda defeats the whole point of A&E…
Literally entire rest of developed world: a school shooting happening is national breaking news
USA: No school shooting happening for 24hours is national breaking news
If you gave your AI permission to run console commands without check or verification, then you did in fact give it permission to delete everything.
A lot of them been so indoctrinated into mistrusting authorities and instutions, that they basically disbelieve anything they say on principle.
And al the evidence, all the scientists telling them they’re wrong just ends up reinforcing their belief in some giant conspiracy.
It’s sadly been shown in more than one study that changing the mind of conspiracy theorists with reason, argumens or evidence is basically impossible. It’s almost a self preservation instict against cognitive dissonance. They were so sure they were right, and now so one is telling them they’re not. That feels shit, and it feels shit to accept you were wrong about something you so fervently insisted was true. So their brains basically go into self defense mode, and just reject and attack anything that threatens the shaky fundamentals of their entire belief system. The best thing you can attmept to do is to distract them. Get them to talk and think about other things. When they mention the conspiracy, don’t engage, don’t argue how they’re wrong, they’ll just dig their heels in deeper, just change the topic to something else. Force them to spend less time in their delusions. Eventually, if you’re lucky, they might gain enough distance to the topic, and stop caring about it enough that they’re ready to start accepting how batshit insane those conspiracies are.
To quote Hbomberguy:
“The anti vaccine movement had next to no evidence [27] years ago, and they have even less today”
That is enormously ironic, since I literally never claimed you said anything except for what you did: Namely, that synthetic data is enough to train models.
According to you, they should be able to just generate synthetic training data purely with the previous model, and then use that to train the next generation.
LIterally, the very next sentence starts with the words “Then why”, which clearly and explicitly means I’m no longer indirectly quoting you Everything else in my comment is quite explicitly my own thoughts on the matter, and why I disagree with that statment, so in actual fact, you’re the one making up shit I never said.
I don’t care if it slows down the legislative process, I am firmly of the opinion that all politicians should be legally required to take a short exam designed by experts on the topic of any legislation they want to vote on (including things like basic understandings of the concept and potential consequences, both positive and negative, of the legislation), and any politician who fails isn’t allowed to vote on that legislation.
Politicians shouldn’t be allowed to vote on legislation that they demonstrably do not understand.