This is a monumental task.
YouTube needs to find an effective and *efficient* method to filter out what essentially amounts to spam videos. Otherwise, their expenses for data storage will skyrocket. I've noticed an increasing number of videos featuring robotic voices reciting snippets from Wikipedia, combined with stock photos and videos.

I wonder if they'll eventually implement something like a "view-count deposit".
Like, people pay something like $1 to upload a video, and if that video reaches a set number of views in a set period of time, then the uploader gets their $1 back. The larger the video, the larger the deposit, and the video is given more time to reach that minimum view count. Or view-count-per-impression? Etc.

Establishing the specific dollar amount set will be a challenge, but it could work in principle.
The uploader is forced to bet on the quality of their own video, potentially reducing the expected tsunami of AI-generated video content.

Any thoughts?

CoolWorlds on YouTube did a video explaining the basic physics required for CO2 capture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Planting trees at scale, won't really help on the timescales that we need because they take up arable land, and just lead to larger forest fires.

Carbon capture has to start somewhere, sometime. I think one or two hundred of years in the future, carbon capture will simply be accepted as a required cost of existing.

Seriously. 95% is 1-in-20. One to two children in *every* grade school classroom. 10 in every college/university classroom. A few employees of every single Starbucks, McDonalds, and every other franchise restaurant. Entire sections of every stadium. Entire floors of every high-rise building. 10-20 in every grocery store.

If 1-in-20 cars killed their drivers, there'd be a ban on cars overnight until that shit was figured out.

People who don't understand this, like you said, are really REALLY stupid. They're pulling quotes like they're pulling lines from the bible, screaming "See?? See???", as if doing that ever worked outside of Sunday church. The limit of their math stops at grade 6, and they're just oh so confident that literal armies of PhDs have overlooked what's plainly revealed with simple manipulations of fractions. Like, "HAS NOBODY CALCULATED THE SURVIVAL RATE YET????!! OMG YOU IDIOTS!"

People like this literally have no idea what they're talking about. You're descriptions of reality conflict with their imagination, so discussions are just... honestly... pointless.

... how many patterns it's capable of displaying.

It will still only be worn once.

Don't waste your energy. The person you're replying to clearly has very little (if any) knowledge of nuclear physics, plant design, military operations and logistics, or anything else that's relevant to the conservation.

I cancelled my Netflix subscription, but only because my gf and I often found ourselves doom-scrolling through countless movies and shows with never a strong desire to watch any of them. I can't speak to other peoples' reasons for being upset, but I can think of a few reasons.

1. Password-sharing was once encouraged by Netflix. I can understand how this about-face policy "feels" like a bait-and-switch.
2. Imposing higher prices for little (or no) marginal value is, by its very nature, inflationary. These price increases serve no purpose other than as a cash grab. People generally don't want to *feel* like being targets of cash-grabs.

Typically, when a business saturates its market, it can grow revenue further by either offering new products (innovation), or through inflationary price increases. Companies like Apple pump out new products, and their customers are more than happy to send more money their way because they feel like they're getting more (tangible benefits or intangible benefits). But inflationary price increases just "seems lazy".

So the overall discontent can be summarized as, customers feeling like they've been bait-and-switched, are forced to pay substantially more per month for the same (or less) functionality as before, by a company that's doing so because squeezing cash from existing users is easier to do than simply innovating and creating new content that actually draws more subscriptions and revenue (ie. "Their job").

In my eyes, these account-sharing crackdowns exposes the vision of Netflix's leadership to be as short-term as is humanly possible, and they're no longer focused on growing Netflix as a business as they may have been when they... let's say... produced House of Cards.

I think you're equating "Desire to control something" == "That something can be controlled"

Nobody's disagreeing with you, because nobody, at any point, hinted or suggested that it could be controlled.
My argument is that he never expressed any desire to control or limit the spread of his research.

So it sounds like you're arguing with... yourself?

I don't think he had any intent of "controlling" it.
I was one of his classes back in 2005, and was blown away by results of him using of RBMs to initialize deep nets so they could actually back-propagate. At the end of the course, I personally asked him if any of his techniques with deep-learning were patented, or if anyone could use his research. He said (paraphrasing) "Nope, it's not patented. You're free to use it however you wish".

I think if anything, he would be disheartened by seeing how this tech is being used.
You have to remember, this is a guy whose foray into machine learning stemmed from his desire to come up with an explanation of the human brain's "buggy" behaviour. His undergrad studies in abnormal psychology is what led him to develop the biggest breakthroughs in machine learning. His drive was always to better understand how the human brain worked. You can see this in one of his lectures at Google when he introduced the idea of "gates", and you can see how enthusiastic at how it was somehow linked with the reason why humans are horrible at recognizing faces upside-down. It was the same enthusiasm I saw in his class when he explained to the class of less than 20 students how much confidence he has in his approach being an accurate representation of how the brain actually worked, because of how it outputted the same symptoms as deep-dyslexia when it was damaged the same way as a real brain (again, digging into his study of abnormal psychology).

So with this context, him looking around and seeing the grandchildren of his models being used to create "fake" faces, fake news, cheat on essays, not to mention the impact of this research being assimilated into applications for militaries around the world... yeah... I can totally understand why he'd feel some level of regret. Nobody's doing this to better understand the brain.

In short, I don't think he ever desired to "control" anything about his ML research.
I think he's just shocked at how ML is being used in ways he never intended.
And his intent was always to use it as a tool to understand the brain (in my opinion).

They're asking for information, but what they're really looking for is marketing. They want the feeling of safety, not the knowledge of safety.

I don't disagree with you, but only because what Stripe would charge is unknown if they had to maintain a mobile OS and mobile app store to serve for billions of iPhones and iPads and who-knows-how-many app developers.

Can an argument be made for Stripe to do all that, and *not* raise their current fees?

I've never owned an Apple product, simply because I *do* believe they charge a hefty premium for their pretty walled garden. I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument, because on the surface, I can understand (but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree) if these complaints are viewed like people complaining about the cost of replacing a broken headlight on their Mercedes being too high, and then quoting the price of LED bulbs at Home Depot as evidence.

I'm not sure you understand what the word "immunity" means, and therefore do not understand the function of a vaccine.

But I can help.

im-mu-ni-ty
"the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin by the action of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells"

You jest, but this how the large hadron collider saves on their tremendous data storage needs. They only detect spin-up states and ignore the measured spin-down states.

Imagine you have a machine in your pocket. This machine is aware of your life and your surroundings as you go about your day. But, once in a while, it'll sound an alert with a message:

"STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Think VERY carefully about where you are right now. Here's a list of 7 things you could do in your situation *right now*, and ONE of them will lead to you having a VERY good day". The machine even doesn't tell you what will happen, only that you will really really like the outcome if you choose one of the 7 options. When someone receives that alert, you can bet that person will have a better chance of having a VERY good day vs not having such a machine at all.

This is the advantage that's being talked about. At this level of chess, there aren't 50 possible move options per turn. There are maybe 10 that will be considered seriously. Simply being alerted to take more time to analyze a position whenever the possible outcome has the potential to be extremely favourable is a huge advantage. If a person can do this with their own brain, they become a world-class chess player. If a machine does this, the person who uses such a machine is cheating.

I don't know if the accused player cheated or not, but this is the cheating mechanism people are talking about.

"I don't know how to recognize an X. I find it suspicious that I have never seen an X."

It's fine for people to be confused by what they don't understand.

But you find it strange that you don't see something you don't understand how to recognize?

Dude...