A loom that learned to weave itself.
I see they have a SFW requirement. And while my site is currently SFW, I won’t guarantee that it will remain so.
Still, it’s at least making me consider cutting out all the zurb-foundation stuff, since that’s the only JS I have, and the site is simple enough that it doesn’t really need it.
I love this.
I thought I was being “bare-bones” when I remade my website with PHP & XML (no framework or database). What would they think about a python app that delivers plaintext or html? Is that still kosher for the no-js gang? Or does it have to be static files?
used to train both commercial
commercial training is, in this case, stealing people’s work for commercial gain
and open source language models
so, uh, let us train open-source models on open-source text. There’s so much of it that there’s no need to steal.
?
I’m not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement.
How exactly does this benefit “us” ?
adding missing information
From where?
Is there a way for us to complain to wikipedia about this? I contribute money every year, and I will 100% stop if they’re stomping more LLM-slop down my throat.
Edit: You can contribute to the discussion in the link, and you can email them at addresses found here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/
If we need summaries, let’s let a human being write the summaries. We are already experts at writing. We love doing it.
I want to read his “Meaning of the City” because I just like City theory, but I keep postponing in case it’s just Christian morality lessons. The anarchist Christian angle makes this sound more interesting.
Are his books good for non-Christians too?
Debian. You’ll have the same (amazing) package manager without the extra ubuntu stuff. Find a desktop manager that supports the stylus (I assume Gnome and KDE Plasma both will support it).
Just make sure to enable non-free packages.
I read the post, but with this kind of title people actually should just skip the article and ridicule the clickbait title. Because it’s intentionally selling the opposite message of the actual post. And that opposite message is not worth reading in detail.
This is so far from analogous that it’s almost a nonsequitur.
No, and you don’t even believe such nonsense. You’re grasping, ineffectively.