Would you like to at least engage with the discourse a bit more, eg explain why the reason I have mentioned and other possible reasons are not good to you? Otherwise you’re not adding much to the conversation.

Beyond Need has indeed had sausages for quite awhile now.

Hmm, why have you not responded to the substantive reasoning for the law? As a self-professed freedom advocate, well, that’s obviously a lie so do you actually have something of value to add or are you just trolling?

AlphaFold’s success seems to be largely linked to its use of attention-based architecture, similar to GPT, i.e. the architecture used by LLMs. Beyond that, they are both building on work in machine learning and statistics, so I don’t think they are nearly as independent as you are making out.

Despite all the downvotes, I think it’s a reasonable enough question. It happens to have a very reasonable answer though.

First of all, your concern is largely addressed, since immigration control can still access law enforcement databases if they have a warrant.

As for why this law exists at all, well it’s actually to the benefit of law enforcement: the idea is that immigrant communities are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement if they aren’t scared that they will be the target of immigration control. This is all the more practical now, when ICE has degraded into a largely lawless and authoritarian organization, since you can imagine most immigrants wouldn’t want to say a word to any police officer unless they at least have the protections of the 2017 TRUST act in place.

Now, what I’m a bit confused about is why you are so up-in-arms about the existence of this law instead of the violation of this law. Surely if you are so law-abiding as you make out to be in your comments, you should be shouting for legal action against the police officers involved in breaking the law.

Lol dude I am also not arguing about the main point, my contention is that you’re being uppity with phrasing when you are in fact entirely wrong. If you’re gonna be a grammar Nazi you have to at least be correct.

edit: ah nevermind I understand from your most recent comment that you’re just trolling

No, we are taking about violence in a region, which can have many causes and origins. Violence in the region has stemmed from a combination of religion and foreign interference (and presumably many other things). If this isn’t what your claim addresses, then your claim is irrelevant to this conversation.

Lol what are you talking about? Many things can have a stem, such as a plant, which is not the same as the stem itself. According to all major dictionaries, stem can mean the main trunk of a plant, but it can also mean other certain plant part providing support. So your claim doesn’t hold.

Some definitions include the word “main”… and many definitions don’t. So actually I don’t see anything necessarily indicating that there can only be one stem.

Of course it can—why do you think something can’t have multiple stems? No one said that it stems exclusively from one thing.

Fair enough, that seems accurate!

Tbh in my experience LLM and other recently developed techniques such as stable diffusion are referred to as GenAI by most lay people. For both lay people and technical audience, i.e. people who work in machine learning, AI has a much broader significance.

Most people on Lemmy seem to define AI as “evil machine learning that i don’t like” vs non-AI as everything else. It’s a wee bit delusional.

Honestly I don’t see them complaining nor are they pretending that it’s uniquely male. I just don’t see any words to support that. Do you think you might be reading a bit too much into it?

That’s great, these sound like basic details that their budget should take into account when considering how many people they can employ!

Lol, please do tell me more about Stanford’s lack of money.

That’s fair, I don’t be necessarily disagree, but perhaps another way of thinking about it is simply by looking at the diversity and types of interpretations that there may be for a particular work. For example, a book club reading 1984 would likely discuss the author’s intended reflection on the real world; whereas a book club reading LOTR (depending on the individuals) is much more likely to be discussing the emotions and individual travails and growth of the characters and how the relate to a world which is distinctly its own (even if there are inevitable similarities to our own). In practice, I feel that is a clear enough distinction.

It’s an interesting story, I definitely appreciate learning about this… and one which is very specific to Oklahoma, and doesn’t reveal all that much (nor would I say it’s necessary to hear to understand the crux) of Americanism.

I interpret it quite differently to mean that a good (hi)story is indeed its own unique creation which can exist and be judged and enjoyed on its own accord without necessarily being a commentary or reflection of anything in the real world. Of course, all imagination relates to the real world to some extent—and that’s where applicability comes in—but it’s possible to reject the elements of allegory and in doing to build your own world which feels just as real and nuanced as our own.

Have you considered that we may need to reform.aspects of representative democracy in order to effectively address climate change?