@y0kai @Dagwood222 Seconded on that one, it's definitely more used with a negative/sarcastic connotation

@BackOnMyBS It's been a lot of trial and error mostly, but that's my general framework, it varies by person, someone who understands autism more is usually a little easier to work with, for example

@BackOnMyBS It's not entirely straightforward, but I find that stating "I'm confused because you said 'x' which I interpreted as 'y' and this thing you're saying now I interpret as being 'z' doesn't seem consistent, what am I not understanding" (doesn't have to be those exact words)

Or if it's something I said I apologize for the confusion, state my intentions behind what I said, and try to say it in a different way based off how they interpreted the last thing I said

@BackOnMyBS I finally figured out how to properly communicate when I'm confused about someone's behavior or their perception of my behavior, I've been able to get more context in conversation as well as avoid certain arguments due to miscommunication/misinterpretation

@thestereobus @Cock_Inspecting_Asexual AirPods Pro 2 really work for me personally

If you wanted to stick with the AirPods route the Maxes will do a better job of noise isolation due to size, but they’re bulky and super expensive

Though there are rumors going around that Apple will be updating the AirPods Max today at their release event so definitely keep a lookout for those if you’re interested

@TwilightKiddy I can see how you can get there, but the MITM would need to know the hashing algo, you can’t *really* just un-hash something, at least not reliably

But your original statement was that the hashing was the privacy violation, and that’s the part I took issue with, hashing is a generally accepted security measure, it is not inherently a privacy violation

@TwilightKiddy @prousername bro really said hashing is a privacy violation??

@zbyte64 where am I wrong? The process is effectively the same: you get a set of training data (a textbook) and a set of validation data (a test) and voila, I’m trained

To learn how to draw an image of a thing, you look at the thing a lot (training data) and try sketching it out (validation data) until it’s right

How the data is acquired is irrelevant, I can pirate the textbook or trespass to find a particular flower, that doesn’t mean I’m learning differently than someone who paid for it

@zbyte64 data quality, again, was out of the scope of what I was talking about originally

Which, again, was that legal precedent would suggest that the *how* is largely irrelevant in copyright cases, they’re mostly focused on *why* and the *scale of the operation*

I’m not getting sued for copyright infringement by the NYT because I used inspect element to delete content to read behind their paywall, OpenAI is

@zbyte64 1) In no way is quality a part of that equation and 2) In what other contexts is quality ever a part of the equation? I mean I can go look at some Monets and paint some shitty water lillies, is that somehow problematic?

@zbyte64 from what I understand, you’re referring to the process at scale—the amount of information the AI can take in is inhuman—which I’m not disagreeing with

None of which is relevant to my original point: the scale of their operations, which has already been used countless times in copyright law

The scale at which they operate and their intention to profit is the basis for their infringement, how they’re doing it would be largely irrelevant in a copyright case, is my point

@zbyte64 we’re saying the same thing

It’s a matter scale, not process