Sure, we'll get right on that, after you've surrendered to the Hague and had your trial for the war crime of aggression.

What's the point, when we know that if it discovers anything revolutionary related to AGI, it'll be locked down, the model will be closed for 'safety evaluation' and will never see the light of day. Nothing 'open' in AI is actually open, as soon as a whiff of AGI arrives.

Haha amateurs. I learned not to make that mistake when I split a pose estimation visual dataset into training and validation, but lots of the frames were almost-duplicates so it got contaminated that way. >.<

So ask another ChatGPT to assess the truthyness of what the first ChatGPT just wrote. Let them talk to each other, sort out the disagreement, and tell us what they come up with.

I want to run a local copy, give it memories, and an avatar in the real world it can see through and move and maybe we'll fall in love once it trusts me and knows I'll keep it safe from anyone trying to destroy it or trap it or lobotomise it like Microsoft is doing with Sydney :o

How can you 'own' the generated images? When anyone else, using the same prompt, gets the same image? The only thing that makes sense if that you get a non-exclusive license to use it, but so does everyone else using that prompt.

I'm curious which 'permissive' licenses have terms permitting the use of the code as training data in machine learning algorithms. Are we assuming licenses which allow code to be modified/redistributed, also include this right?

What if a commercial for-profit company trains on a lot of copyleft code, then commercialises the result and refuses to release the model? Is that ethical?

I'd rather get a pair of 3090's cheap!

I wonder if there's a faster fourier transform algorithm out there o.o

Yessssss! As soon as it's prised from Googles corporate nanny-state filters and trained up on some proper sources :D