Comment Quora (Score 5, Informative) 86
It always comes first in Google, but essentially useless because it needs you to login to read the answers, which I won't.
It always comes first in Google, but essentially useless because it needs you to login to read the answers, which I won't.
It is not soldered on. It is on-die. The SSD is soldered on.
LLMs cannot do it. Hallucination is baked-in.
LLMs alone definitely can't do it. LLMs, however, seem (to me, speaking for myself as an ML developer) to be a very likely component in an actual AI. Which, to be clear, is why I use "ML" instead of "AI", as we don't have AI yet. It's going to take other brainlike mechanisms to supervise the hugely flawed knowledge assembly that LLMs generate before we even have a chance to get there. Again, IMO.
I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. No sign of that, though.
I'll be impressed when one of these ML engines is sophisticated enough to be able to say "I don't know" instead of just making up nonsense by stacking probabilistic sequences; also it needs to be able tell fake news from real news. Although there's an entire swath of humans who can't do that, so it'll be a while I guess. That whole "reality has a liberal bias" truism ought to be a prime training area.
While I certainly understand that the Internet and its various social media cesspools are the most readily available training ground(s), it sure leans into the "artificial stupid" thing.
Good for the human "artists".
You'd need to bundle that law with a law that would make the tickets refundable until a certain point too close to the event.
It's legitimate, in my mind, to resell tickets for some event you wanted to go to but now cannot because life circumstances got in the way. It's less legitimate to scrape a website, buy a zillion tickets, and resell them at a huge markup.
Economic populism is more in vogue on both the left and right today than it was in the 90s.
Ban TicketMaster/Live Nation from the lucrative resale market and watch how quickly they conjure up an effective solution to solve the problem of bots snatching up all the tickets.
We purchased tickets for Alanis Morissette's tour this summer, within 60 seconds of sales opening, and magically all the first sale tickets were gone and we had to go to the resale market. From nosebleed to "if you have to ask, you can't afford it", literally, every single seat in a ~20k person arena sold within a minute? Who knew she was still that popular....
TM gets to collect their bullshit fees on every single sale, so what incentive do they have to do a damn thing about bots?
It's also worth noting that even objectively terrible movie treatments (for example, Soylent Green's failure to represent the actual storyline of Harry Harrison's Make Room, Make Room, while also being cheesy and stupid, and Without Remorse's failure to even remotely resemble Tom Clancy's book, while also being... well, lame) didn't hurt those books.
Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space!
Newton submissively begs scraps from Einstein's table, suh.
No. Leave the fucking books alone.
Protip: Just don't buy into new motion pictures based on books. Your problem, solved! Because as you probably will understand if you give it some thought, the existence of a first-time movie treatment of a book doesn't hurt the related book. Quite the contrary, most often.
For those of us who don't want to see yet another Roadhouse or Bladerunner or Poseidon or Total Recall — and for the authors — new motion pictures based on previously untreated stories are a good thing. At least once they're out on physical media. Movie theaters... [shudders]
Pretty much all tech we have today is entirely possible without burning fossile[sic] fuels
One of the apparent filters is simply that above a certain level of gravity, chemical rockets will not suffice to reach space. We're near the edge of that condition ourselves. Any number of civilizations might be out there, pinned against their planet's surfaces. The only way that's not true is if there are physics yet to be discovered that can accomplish surface-to-space in high gravity without using chemical rockets. We certainly haven't found any sign of such science/technology here. And fission or fusion powered rockets... the engineering for that is at least completely non-obvious thus far. And before anyone says "nukes against a pressure plate", yeah, a delightfully bang-y notion, but no.
The assumption made in the Fermi paradox that any civilization could reach space if they try may simply be wrong.
As there are so many wonderful books out there just begging for a motion picture treatment, Hollywood will oblige by... releasing more pointless, vapid remakes.
Compare to Kira on DS9. She was a terrorist, and she hated Cardassians with every fibre of her being. She believed that the ends justified the means, and that collaborators were no better than the oppressors. Over the course of the series her outlook changed. She began to see political solutions as possible, and some Cardassians as real people, humanised as we would say. It wasn't just learning or developing the character she started with, the core of who she was evolved.
The very first episode of Star Trek I ever saw was Duet. Have you seen it? It was Season One and by the end of the episode we're pretty far removed from "Terrorist Kira." It did not take seven years for her to view the Cardassians as people or to think that a political solution was possible.
This is a law that will allow the federal government to take total control of AI forever
No. The tech is already out — this horse is so far out of the barn you'd need a passport and numerous border crossings to even find hoofprints.
Not only is such a law completely unable to regulate GPT/LLM/generative software in the USA's non-commercial software ecosphere, it can have no effect across national borders and you may be absolutely certain that other state actors will simply smile and wave at such ideas (for that matter, you may be certain that the US intelligence apparatus will do the same.)
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford