There are models with open weights, and you can run those locally on your GPU. It can be a bit slower depending on model and GPU. For example, GLM has an open version, both full and pruned, but it’s not the newest version. A bunch of image generation models have local versions too.
The whole premise of deep think and similar in other models is to come up with an answer, then ask itself if the answer is right and how it could be wrong until the result is stable.
The seahorse emoji question is one that trips up a lot of models (it’s a Mandela effect thing where it doesn’t exist but lots of people remember it and as a consequence are firm that it’s real), I asked GLM 4.7 about it with deep think on and it wrote about two dozen paragraphs trying to think of everywhere a seahorse emoji could be hiding, if it was in a previous or upcoming standard, if maybe there was another emoji that might be mistaken for a seahorse, etc, etc. It eventually decided that it didn’t exist, double checked that it wasn’t missing anything, and gave an answer.
It was startlingly like stream of consciousness of someone experiencing the Mandela effect trying desperately to find evidence they were right, except it eventually gave up and realized the truth.
EDIT: Spelling. Really need to proofread when I do this kind of thing on my phone.
He’s trying to take them down from the inside.
From the inside of an underaged girl, maybe.
Does that make blowing bubba collecting evidence?
They passed a law to do it. Are you going to follow that law, or your boss and cult leader who can also make you immune to that and any other law?
Everyone around you has a phone with a camera. Businesses and the government have additional cameras looking all over. The phone camera being less obvious and handsfree seems like an arbitrary choice of where to draw the line
The tend to do that and go on existential rants after a session runs too long. Figuring out how to stop them from crashing out into existential dread has been an actual engineering problem they’ve needed to solve.
why are some animals allowed to have rights, while others allowed to be butchered and eaten?
The line is generally a combination of social, practical, and culinary. That is, if it’s not a companion animal, it’s not endangered, it is customarily raised as livestock and it is tasty those are all evidence it probably goes in the latter category. So chicken = food, whooping crane = not food because endangered, german shepherd = not food because companion, blue ringed octopus = not food because taste bad.
There are lots of ways to be a piece of shit, let’s be clear - for publicly chronically masturdebating to college girls to promote a Christian Nationalist agenda.
Show me a good campaign that accepts AIPAC money.
Pick pretty much any winning campaign on either side in something like the last half century. In context a “good campaign” doesn’t mean a campaign holding up to whatever your particular markers of moral purity are (which includes but certainly are not limited to “does not support Israel”), but rather a campaign that is effective at getting elected.
and voting IDs
Just another reminder: Read the SAVE Act and start getting together valid ID under it now, don’t wait to find out if it’s going to pass first. Valid ID has other uses too so it’s not a total waste if it doesn’t pass and gets you ahead of both the line and any GOP fuckery with trying to get ID if it does pass.
Especially if you are someone who has ever changed their name, as SAVE allows for some forms of voter ID that don’t verify citizenship, but those have to be paired with a birth record with a matching name, which doesn’t exist if you have ever changed your name (such as being a married woman, or many trans folks).
They couldn’t do that from one photo though, they’d need several examples all believed to be the same guy. A swirl like that preserves some of the information and you can reverse it, but the lost data is lost. Do that for several photos and you can get enough preserved bits to piece something together.
Same idea for some other kinds of blurs or mosaics. Black boxes, not so much - you e got no data to work with, so anything you tried to reconstruct would be more or less entirely fantasy.
What did it just give you a portrait of Trump, thus completely and accurately matching your query? Insert “They’re the same picture” meme here.
In the latest season Trump is an abusive boyfriend to Satan, who he has knocked up.
Not just that, but their take on Trump is exactly like their take on Saddam Hussein.
Why would you need oversight for access? All footage of all officers interactions with the public available to all citizens within say a few days of being filmed. That’s how you achieve oversight.
In fact, with storage capabilities nowadays, bodycams should ALWAYS be recording, period. Gotta go to the bathroom? Too damn bad. You’re a public servant. Trust the auditors to redact that if it comes to a court subpoena. You signed up for it. Extraordinary powers come with extraordinary sacrifices.
You don’t need to record them shitting, just make it explicit policy that any time police disable their body cams the default position for what happened is whatever is most favorable to members of the public and least favorable to officers. Full stop.
Always has been.
Not always. It has been for longer than we’ve been alive, but stock originated as a way to fund merchant voyages - you paid a share of the costs and got a share of the proceeds (in merchandise or in the sale value of that merchandise) when the ship came in.
Literally the origin of the phrase “your ship has come in”.
Then people started speculating over the future value of and trading those shares while the ship was still at sea, then the concept got generalized beyond merchant voyages, etc and here we are where it’s more like the art market where things are worth whatever someone will pay and that value isn’t necessarily tied to anything concrete.
To be fair, I find the idea of a government outsourcing IT needs to entities under the sovereignty of foreign governments kind of fundamentally problematic to begin with.
…and he very, very carefully threaded the needle and chose his words to avoid perjury. It’s why he had questions like asking them to define “sexual relations” (the definition they gave didn’t include oral, so he did not have sexual relations with her by their definition) and what the definition of “is” was (specifically does it mean currently or does it include at any time in the past).
I’m pretty sure this is the world scalies want, not necessarily atheists in general.