Meet Gorilla : The Language Model That Can Interact with Over 1,600 APIs and Outperforms GPT-4 for API calls
Gorilla is an open-source project, created by Shishir Patil, a PhD Student in ML systems at UC Berkeley.
It’s based on Falcon and MPT, two powerful language models that have been fine-tuned for API integration and usage.
Gorilla can parse the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) when writing code, resulting in semantically and syntactically correct API invocations. This means that it can significantly reduce hallucinations and incorrect syntax, which are common problems for other language models, such as GPT-4.
First Freedom of the Air: the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services, granted by one State to another State or States to fly across its territory without landing (also known as a First Freedom Right).
Accurate. Country of Origin is basis in this case which is Greece. Adequate response would be to indefinitely bar all Belarusian originating flights from traveling through any signatory's airspace.
However, this most likely only furthers the goals of the current Belarusian administration for the population there. Enforced strictly, to include diplomatic flights, it may cause measurable change.
That was a direct order from the self proclaimed president. The plane was 10 min away from Vilnius airport but the fighter jet was closer. Do you understand the difference? And btw there is a high chance the journalist will be executed.
I thought this should not stand yes. Not sure if I said so publicly at the time. I was less active on fora.
PS: I am a Snowden supporter though :) I think he did us a great service. I'm not American but he exposed the extent to which our details are shared with US intelligence agencies.
I certainly denounced it, but also keep in mind that the president's plane was not "downed" in nearly the same fashion. Nobody forced the plane to land in any particular spot, and (if you believe Morales) no one searched the plane.
Forget politics, let's turn to normal people. Illicit actions of criminals justify the use of policing force on them in all countries of the world.
The actions are the same: coercion through force, basically. In one case they are wrong (criminal), in other case they are good and justified by wrong actions (policing).
Too much on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand to be definitive. He concludes that every example of a centrist democrat doing whataboutism is fine and every example of anyone else doing it as not fine. I'm sure that will convince lots of centrist democrats. The very idea of having a Donald-vs-Bill sexual-assault contest without even mentioning Tara Reade says all we need to know about this person's judgment. To be fair, the first sentence does that too.
Cool. Well you just wasted at least ten minutes of your life thinking about something that I posted disingenuously in order to demonstrate that whataboutism is about distraction rather than have me trying to stay on topic and directly address your points. In a meta way I suppose I did.
I skimmed it and disagreed with it. Generally, if you can't win an argument based on logic, and then emotional appeals, then you can fall back on jurisdiction. You can attack the other person's credibility (you have no jurisdiction), proclaim that no resolution is possible, the world is too complex (we don't have jurisdiction), or as I now realize whataboutism means this is the right jurisdiction, but nothing you said matters because we're arguing the wrong topic. So yeah, whataboutism is the argument of last resort. Ergo, the one used by people who don't have a good argument.
This is literally not a whatabout since we are discussing the same actions here, forcing an airplane down and breaking international laws, norms and traditions.
Let us try to decide if some of the posters here are hypocrites or not.
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
Disproving an argument is not a prerequisite for exposing hypocrisy, these acts can be done separately. And if the other party doesn't address the accusation of hypocrisy there might not be a need for disproving the argument to them, as their position might be politically motivated and not aimed at resolving the issue in principle.
in this case, it is more akin to Charles Manson condemning Shoko Asahara for cult activity, and dismissing his "then why are you doing it?" as "whataboutism".
It is important to know whether the condemning party applies the same standards to their own activities, because there's no possibility of resolving the issue at hand without both parties applying the same principles and standards on everyone, including themselves. And dismissing the significance of this knowledge as "whataboutism" is short-sighted, because it's the tool of establishing standards of morality, and it gives a hint to third parties about the nature of their neighbours involved in the dispute.
That is what the term means in popular culture, but what are the implications?
In practice it means that the side who accuses first (currently mostly SJWs) gets to speak and attack others while using "whataboutism" as a shield to shut up their opponents.
So let's be clear. The US didn't "down" anyone -- the US does not have jurisdiction over any of the airspace in question:
> The day after his TV interview, Morales's Dassault Falcon 900, carrying him back to Bolivia from Russia, took off from Vnukovo Airport, but was rerouted to Austria when France, Spain, Portugal and Italy[2] reportedly denied access to their airspace, allegedly due to suspicions that Snowden was on board.
I'm sure the US applied diplomatic pressure, but those countries are all developed, rich economies who were perfectly capable of saying no and preserving their sovereignty. It was done with full consent of the countries in question.
Evo Morales' plane wasn't grounded by anybody; they chose to land, with a suspiciously convenient reason. Given Evo Morales whole anti-imperialist persona, and how he hyped his support for Snowden (appearing to consider offering Snowden asylum on a public TV interview just a day before, to hammer it home), and the fact that it's not even really clear which countries actually denied access to their airspace (the Bolivian account is disputed), and that nobody forced the plane to land or even requested it to, you kind of have to conclude that this was a political stunt by Evo Morales.
To put it this was: the US and it's allies were played for fools, highlighting their unreasonableness. But in no way shape or form is this similar to the current situations in anything but the most superficial sense.
That however, is not true; the air traffic control in Belarus directed them to land in Belarus; and scrambled fighter jets to intimidate them into compliance.
A kidnapping is not the same thing as denying entry; nor are the victims equally reasonable even if the crime were - a civilian plane vs. that of a diplomat that wanted to pick exactly this fight.
Cannot be allowed to stand by whom? Everyone else is too busy silencing proper journalists, in what world are we where you actually think there is a country that stands for 'free speech'? Speech that's against the status quo gets silenced, just cus you buy everything the MSM sells doesn't mean the rest of the world has to. People need to travel(or explore different perspectives if possible) more or at least stop spreading ignorance.
Utilized globally by individual developers, large enterprises such as JP Morgan & Chase[1], and integrated into the KMS services such as Google Cloud[2].
In particular, this solution implements a key vault that you can safely store keys using the security model provided by your OS (Windows, MacOS or Linux). The tool provides a CLI that lets you easily create and store keys from the command line.
Committing the initial capital to form a FEC recognized national political party The Privacy Party to begin direct opposition to this and related activities.
If you are interested in collaborating or learning more:
Committing the initial capital to form a FEC recognized national political party "The Privacy Party" to begin direct opposition to this and related activities.
If you are interested in collaborating or learning more:
The libertarian party also considers taxation to be unethical confiscation of private property, and advocates for the privatization of most-to-all government-provided services. If either of those are anathema to you, its hard to vote Libertarian.
If it was removed for anything other normal violations of an Apps Stores TOS it would be violating several portions of the the First Amendment including freedom of speech, for the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government.[1]
> it would be violating several portions of the the First Amendment including freedom of speech, for the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government.
i am pretty sure the bill of rights is about what the government can’t do, and doesn’t affect private parties like apple...
Public gathering points on scales much larger than any public square could facilitate ought to abide by the principles of the US Constitution, even if, and this is an if since I'm admittedly ignorant to this detail, their behavior is not legally obligated by it.
By your logic doesn’t Apple already violate the First Amendment by not allowing porno apps? That doesn’t seem to have kept them up at night or caused any significant consequences.
Couldn't they just change the TOS to say something like you can't use apps to evade law enforcement, which they might do under pressure from the police unions?
Maybe it wouldn't be shut down by police unions but what about lawmakers and politicians? So you believe that an app known to be enabling and protecting protests on the level of what's happening in Hong Kong, with regular destruction of property, molotovs, knives to police, etc. would be allowed to stay on the app store? Hong Kong protests seem like a lot more activity than "petitioning the government", closer to revolution i think. I'm not sure even twitter would stay up. I feel like it would take lots of lawyers on your side. Maybe, I guess i'm not convinced yet.
So you believe that an app known to be enabling and protecting protests on the level of what's happening in Hong Kong, with regular destruction of property, molotovs, knives to police, etc. would be allowed to stay on the app store?
Yes, it's called Twitter. It's happened many times before, complete with fire and mayhem.
In the United States, protests are rarely just "the people" because the politicians are also "the people."
A subset of politicians who oversee the police are very often in the front of any protest march. In addition to community leaders, clergy, and other people the police don't want to screw with.
I know there are a few Hong Kong politicians involved in those protests, but not at the level that is typical in the United States.
In spite of the sensationalized and rare incidents that are publicized on the internet, in America politicians = people > police.
I guess what i'm arguing is that if fire and mayhem was ongoing in the US in the form of a revolution my belief is that the system would shut it down in any way it could. I know social media stayed up during e.g. the Freddy Gray protests but those were short lived. The ferguson protests were longer but were largely peaceful except for the no-indictment day. And if it was something more widespread and ongoing that was a serious threat to order IN THE US I don't believe these systems would be allowed to stay up. I believe they may even shut down cell phone systems. They have stayed up in when other countries were under threat of course but i'm talking about real revolution in the US where people start regularly doing what the Hong Kong protesters do, destruction of entire banks etc., but maybe i am wrong. It's just that we've never seen the level of the Hong Kong riots because police would shoot to kill in the US for that kind of activity, so it's hard to compare.
From their announcement post:
Meet Gorilla : The Language Model That Can Interact with Over 1,600 APIs and Outperforms GPT-4 for API calls
Gorilla is an open-source project, created by Shishir Patil, a PhD Student in ML systems at UC Berkeley.
It’s based on Falcon and MPT, two powerful language models that have been fine-tuned for API integration and usage.
Gorilla can parse the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) when writing code, resulting in semantically and syntactically correct API invocations. This means that it can significantly reduce hallucinations and incorrect syntax, which are common problems for other language models, such as GPT-4.
Apache 2.0 license.