791–800 of 952 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone help me out - who pays for things on HF? Are they charging the model providers?
It's not too dissimilar from GitHub, but geared towards ML. They have a 9/mo pro plan for individual users for upgraded storage/usage, and an enterprise version of Hub that larger orgs can pay for. I think the enterprise has some contract minimum + 50/mo per seat. https://huggingface.co/pro They also have inference endpoints with metered prices, and their spaces product (though i'd imagine this is a smaller portion o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People yes. Corporations no.
What is a corporation but people? Companies are groups of people. They're one or more owners, some managers, possibly some staff. If you take away all the people, then there's nothing there.
HuggingFace offers abliterated/uncensored models, which would seem to run contrary to the "AI is too powerful for regular people" narrative that the big players are pushing. My primary concern is that Nvidia will bow to the pressure and restrict abliterated/uncensored models on HF.
Yes, this is a real possibility imho. Having Nvidia behind HF will now probably have a bunch of litigious entities salivating to sue them for not only allowing, but also distributing uncensored AI models that will then be used for deepfakes, porn, spam, scam, hacking, etc. Sure that could have also been done to HF before, but I'm thinking Nvidia is a much juicier target. Should also now be much easier for the governm…
Using regulation to avoid having to be competitive is the American Way!
In all seriousness though, probably time to start an underground equivalent to HF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens United is a very sound ruling. People have a right to support candidates > they can print a sign and stand on a street corner > printing signs costs money > people have a right to spend money supporting candidates. People have a right to assemble > they can stand on a street corner with their friends > they can hold a big sign together > they can have lots of friends and form a group and print a really big s…
You said "People" a lot in your post. Corporations are not "people". Only natural persons should be able to contribute to political candidates. Corporations can lobby , as a corporate person, just like a union or other organization, but not contribute. They can run ads themselves, but there needs to be a much greater wall between PACs and candidate campaigns, with the previous restrictions now null and void due to la…
If it's okay for Corporations can run ads themselves, then your objection isn't to wealthy people supporting candidates or even them doing so secretly, but... only when the little guy pools donations and they happen to be pool donations via a corporation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens United is a very sound ruling. People have a right to support candidates > they can print a sign and stand on a street corner > printing signs costs money > people have a right to spend money supporting candidates. People have a right to assemble > they can stand on a street corner with their friends > they can hold a big sign together > they can have lots of friends and form a group and print a really big s…
You said "People" a lot in your post. Corporations are not "people". Only natural persons should be able to contribute to political candidates. Corporations can lobby , as a corporate person, just like a union or other organization, but not contribute. They can run ads themselves, but there needs to be a much greater wall between PACs and candidate campaigns, with the previous restrictions now null and void due to la…
The problem isn't "corporations can do the same thing as people."
The problem is anybody (solo or as a group) can legally run an unrestricted indirect campaign.
Elon can do the same, or more, as an individual than just about any corporation. That's just as problematic as Ford or Meta buying an election.
Dark money contributions are a closely related problem that we ought to fix at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Citizens United is a very sound ruling. Corporations only have the powers granted to them by the state. Contributing to politics need not be one of them.
Yes and no. No, state's cannot e.g. discriminate on the basis of race by allowing corporations only composed of certain races. States also cannot infringe on the right to assemble or speak, by prohibiting people from supporting political candidates when they are organized as such a group. But, generally, yes. States can require that the owners / members / corporate books / etc. of a company be disclosed publicly. If…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So where’s the return? Outside of annualized numbers I haven’t even heard people pretend that OAI or Anthropic are profitable. If this is all about ROI there’s sure been a lot of I for as yet unrealized R.
IMO the top end goal is to allow capital to access skill without allowing skill to access capital. IF they can make these products work as advertised (big if, very very big if) the corpos can fire shitloads of low-end workers and give their middle managers access to these AI models and nothing else really has to change. Workers lose their ability to earn a living, but OpenAI and Anthropic become the gatekeepers to ef…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens United is a very sound ruling. People have a right to support candidates > they can print a sign and stand on a street corner > printing signs costs money > people have a right to spend money supporting candidates. People have a right to assemble > they can stand on a street corner with their friends > they can hold a big sign together > they can have lots of friends and form a group and print a really big s…
This is a completely inhuman and unamerican take. Money buys secrecy, it always has. Money is a tool, exercising speech is a right. For the Supreme Court to equate them is ahistorical, plutocratic, and terrible. You sound like you support giving corporations the right to vote as well,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens United is a very sound ruling. People have a right to support candidates > they can print a sign and stand on a street corner > printing signs costs money > people have a right to spend money supporting candidates. People have a right to assemble > they can stand on a street corner with their friends > they can hold a big sign together > they can have lots of friends and form a group and print a really big s…
> Citizens United is a very sound ruling. > People have a right to support candidates > they can print a sign and stand on a street corner > printing signs costs money > people have a right to spend money supporting candidates. Individuals printing signage is not where most of the funding is going though, is it? > People have a right to assemble > they can stand on a street corner with their friends > they can hold a…
Fundamentally it sounds like your complaint is that wealthy people are presumably more able to be effective with their efforts than folks who, e.g. can't afford as big of a bullhorn.
Citizens United wasn't about that. There wasn't a law saying no person shall spend more than $1k/yr supporting a candidate.