burrp

I’ve tried very hard, but I can’t seem to muster any tears for a site tracking company.

Alternatively, on the left is what the users originally asked for, a double cheeseburger. On the right, representing what is eventually delivered after changes in requirements are incorporated, is a deep dish pizza.

A leaf node is a vector to spam/attack the rest of the network. The network is only as strong as its weakest node.

Edit: i.e. an instance owner with a weak shell password

https://www.noip.com/free

You misunderstood. I said the public availability does not grant OpenAI the right to use content improperly. The authors should also sue the party who leaked their works without license.

I’d love to know the source for the works that were allegedly violated. Presuming OpenAI didn’t scour zlib/libgen for the books, where on the net were the cleartext copies of their writings stored?

Being stored in cleartext publicly on the net does not grant OpenAI the right to misuse their art, but the authors need to go after the entity that leaked their works.

How many reviews of their works have been posted online? You don’t need the source text.

Luckett is an unrepentant worm. Chapman is to be commended for calling him out.

Admins paid off? That’s absurd. Lemmy.world are taking a moderate wait-and-see approach. I disagree with that stance, but to insinuate they are corrupt because they aren’t as reactionary as you are is ridiculous.

Keep it civil.

My distrust is in Google, not technology.