please teach me how to do this, I have a webos lg tv which is literally not being used because my father used to watch youtube but then youtube almost stopped working on it and there are no more updates and I tried to root it but i couldn't and I just want to use it instead of it being a junk.
Any guide on helping me prevent some e-waste at my home. I would prefer to have complete linux access of my lgtv and use something like tiny core linux on my webos tv or something, is something like this possible or?
Normally how you realize your TV runs busybox is by looking at the last parts of the manual, not by just casually sshing into it and running busybox --version.
my parents bought the "smart" tv a decade ago to switch away from setup box
It was kinda expensive at the time, its wild of sorts how cheap of sorts TV's have become right now but still we bought it and its just e-waste right now.
I am thinking of setting up a raspberry pi but I am more interested in learning the inner details or how to do things preferably without raspberry pi as well
Reducing waste, fraud, and abuse is always only one side of the story. I agree it would have false negative impact (someone does not submit a good report that otherwise would have), but I don't think that instantly makes it a horrible idea. I think the net effect would have to be studied, but I highly doubt all true postive reports would become false negatives. The goal is reducing false positives, so it is going to be a tradeoff and you'd need specific numbers to conclude anything.
Do you really think it is a horrible idea? That is just so harsh of a label.
fascinating! I think it's really cool that this is possible, and at the same time kine of sad that the norm is slowly moving towards more locked-down APIs.
If this is the startup that finally unleashes AI spam bot articles and comments to the top of HackerNews, I'm gonna quit the internet and move into a log cabin.
Or we just skip the middlemen and exchange our prompts instead.
Back to the core issue - apparently few people took a long enough look at the article to notice it was co-written by AI; i.e. there were human editors in the loop. Sure, the format is a bit off-putting, but that's IMO mostly because nobody can be arsed to write like that, even if their own thesis supervisor told them they should, as proper structuring makes it easier for the reader to understand a complex topic.
Anyway, point is, I personally have no issue with people using AI to improve their texts - LLMs already are better at writing than most people anyway. Just as long as the saved effort is put into ensuring the content itself is valuable and communicated well.
no, for copyright and other social agreements, there has to be a declaration of authorship for original works.. maybe others can expand and clarify; certainly will vary on the major marketplaces in the world
> for copyright and other social agreements, there has to be a declaration of authorship for original works
It's the Internet - we never cared about such things here. Attribution and linking, yes. "Copyright" and "authorship of original works" - are you sure you're not a legacy publisher desperate to insert itself into the free exchange of knowledge and put up a toll gate? :).
I'm joking, but only a little. Unless you actually believe LLMs sin against the Church of Intellectual Property with every token they produce, this complaint feels out of place in context of a blog post summarizing research work done in the open. There are situations in which one could try to argue LLMs violate rights of some authors, but this isn't one of such situations.
