deleted by creator

What I can find all say seem to say more or less the same things about every candidate.

The US, but why? How does the answer differ in different countries?

In Iran, gender reassignment is legal, and they’ll even change the birth certificate to match, from what I learned a decade ago.

Homosexuality, however, is a capital offense, so many gay people are pressured to transition.

Some conservative societies seem to have the attitude that it’s better to go from one role with rigid expectations to another than it is to fail to meet the expectations of your original role.

I’m going to say outdoor.

The “door” part doesn’t really have any significance. No one would say camping under the open sky is an indoor activity, even if there’s a fence with a door around the campsite.

I think it makes more sense for the deciding factor be whether you’re in a controlled or uncontrolled environment. And while part of the cave might be controlled if there’s an artificial entryway or home, that’s not what you’re there to see.

Those are pretty awesome! Thanks, I think I can get a lot of benefit from them.

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I guess it would help if we clarified what ethical issues specifically are we talking about? If you tell me what scenario you are concerned with trying to prevent, I will gladly share my thoughts on it.

You say that as if the ethical concerns of AI kept tightly under control by a single organization aren’t infinitely greater. That is no solution at all to any ethical concerns arising from AI.

Competition and open source is how we navigate it. Ensuring that the power is shared, not monopolized by the few.

The conversation was about ChatGPT and not about AGI.

ChatGPT is not AGI.

Really? I actually found it’s gotten less restrictive recently. Maybe it’s just because now I’ve learned to control the context so it doesn’t perceive a request as offensive.

Well, I’ll be the second. Like all tools, generative AI is going to be used for good and evil purposes. Frankly, I’m not comfortable with a large corporation deciding what is and isn’t ethical for all of humanity. Ideally, it would do what the user asked it for, like all other tools, and society would work to control the bad actors, not OpenAI. Any AI doomsday scenario you can picture gets worst when one party has complete control over the AI technology.

I think it’s important that we support unrestricted open source AI, just as it’s important we support federated social media like lemmy.

Well, as long as a distinction is made. I appreciate the information. I still feel that “decentralized” should be replaced with “polycentric,” but I’ll accept that “decentralized” is the standard term for a system with multiple centers.

Thanks for asking. :) Have a good one.

Then what would you call a network where specific data isn’t tied to specific nodes and lost when the node goes down?

Because it’s polycentric. Each instance is a center. When an instance goes down, it takes all its users and data with it.

I know people around here aren’t fond of cryptocurrency, but bitcoin is what I’d consider a truly decentralized system. Nothing is lost to the network when a bitcoin node goes down. As long as you have your private key, you can spend from any node, and you don’t even need a node to receive.

I believe it’s helpful to distinguish between the two types of systems.

I just said that lemmy is not a decentralized network…

macro?

I think “polycentric” is a better term than “decentralized.”

Every instance is a center, and is vulnerable to failure and corruption like any service provider. But at least we have a choice of instances, and there isn’t a single point of failure for the whole network.

Matrix? That’s the open source and federated equivalent to discord. And it’s end-to-end encrypted.