In other news, the catholic church is suing OpenAI because they had the idea to simply make suicide illegal a thousand years ago and have been using it ever since.
Not sure if it's a trade secret or a copyright case, the news often don't mention the fine details.
That's a good point. Here on
The movie analogy is old and outdated.
I'd compare it to a computer game. In any open world game, it seems that there are people living a life - going to work, doing chores, going home, etc. - but it's a carefully crafted illusion. "Carefully crafted" in so far as the developers having put exactly that into the game that is needed to suspend your disbelief and let you think, at least while playing, that there are real people. But behind the facade, they are not. They just disappear when entering their homes, they have no actual desires just a few numbers and conditional statements to switch between different pre-programmed behaviour patterns.
If done well, it can be a very, very convincing illusion. I'm sure that someone who hasn't seen a computer game before might think that they are actual people, but anyone with a bit of background knowledge knows they are not.
For AI, most of the people simply don't (yet?) have that bit of background knowledge.
And yet, when asked if the world is flat, they correctly say that it's not.
Despite hundreds of flat-earthers who are quite active online.
And it doesn't even budge on the point if you argue with it. So for whatever it's worth, it has learned more from scraping the Internet than at least some humans.
It's almost as if we shouldn't have included "intelligence" in the actual fucking name.
We didn't. The media and the PR departments did. In the tech and academia worlds that seriously work with it, the terms are LLMs, machine learning, etc. - the actual terms describing what the thing does. "AI" is the marketing term used by marketing people. You know, the people who professionally lie about everything in order to sell things.
professions that most certainly require a lot of critical thinking. While I would say that that is ludicrous
It is not just ludicrous, it is irrationally dangerous.
For any (current) LLM, whenever you interact with them you need to remember one rule-of-thumb (not my invention, read it somewhere and agree): The LLM was trained to generate "expected output". So always think that implicitly your prompt starts with "give me the answer you think I want to read on the following question".
Giving an EXPECTED answer instead of the most likely to be true answer is literally life-threatening in a medical context.
That would be awful, your described setup won't be able to handle subtitles and various sound tracks (multilingual support), it wont' remember where you stopped watching and won't be able to resume it later and would make a total pain to search the library.
You do realize that what you're describing is all of about ten lines of Javascript with the right libraries (audioTrackList property, subtitle library, currentTime property), right?
What about tracking what episode you're on? And having profiles so each member of the family can track what episode they're on? I mean, I'll be switching to Jellyfin but that's a good reason to not just do what you say, unless I'm missing something.
Great opportunity for open source web services.
There's no good reason to use it. Just encode your video for random-access streaming, set up Apache or nginx with a URL that you make sure isn't indexed, require a client cert on the directory if you really want to be careful, port forward to it from a port on your router, set up dynamic DNS, and use a web browser. No arbitrary restrictions, just your content on your terms.
ok I get what you are saying, but your common use is most certainly not anywhere near "average" common usage.
For a mobile device, I'm not sure I would let that much data stack up unique to the device. Pictures/video I would try to do backups on a PC before it got to that.
None of it is unique to the device — I have backups of everything — but I still want the photos and videos on the new phone.
Thank you for your reply. I can agree not all premium phone users are on the upgrade treadmill. I also bought what was billed as a flagship for its time, but it's 4 years old now and I'm not really feeling the need to upgrade to something newer. My impression was upgrading wasn't such a pain if you had a device that was recent and in high demand still as carriers seem to love running promos with trade-ins, and only mainstream makes/models tend to be eligible.
Transferring a terabyte of data from one phone to another takes the better part of an hour even at real-world USB 3 speeds.
- Owners of flagship devices concerned with their image and having the latest tech would be more likely to replace devices more often to get access to the latest gear, perhaps handing the old device down to a spouse or child if they aren't getting a trade-in credit for it.
Counterpoint: My phone history includes:
Assuming I keep the 15 Pro for 3 years (the prior minimum), that's 4.75 years average. I also buy the device with the largest capacity, and always wish it were bigger. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't increase capacity quickly enough for upgrading to help with that.
- Owners of cheap phones more focused on value. Top end features are nice but a luxury for something that has core essential functions for them (acting as a communication device). They lack the disposable income to replace devices as quickly, and wish to get the most return (usable life) for their purchase. They are more likely to keep a device until it becomes unusable (damaged, obsolete on mobile network, etc).
Upgrading is expensive and it is a pain in the a**. So there are multiple reasons to keep a device until it dies. Some people who buy flagship phones have the same concerns.
The main difference is that flagship phones typically get security updates for five to seven years. Low-end phones are often previous generation hardware that is still for sale, and may get security updates for as little as one year from the date of purchase. So unless you're willing to put your entire life at risk by using a phone that has gaping security holes, low-end phones are often false economy, purchased by people who see the price tag and are too broke to afford a better one, who then end up paying for replacement after replacement at a higher rate because they can't afford a phone that will actually last five or six years.
So I would expect low-end phones to get junked every couple of years, and for high-end phones to get junked when support is dropped, assuming that the owners know that the phone is no longer supported, and the rest of them just end up in a giant botnet, and they replace their phones because they're bogged down with malware a few months to a year after they go out of support.
The Android vs. iPhone angle can be more of a toss-up. I would expect the iPhone group to be more on the image/latest-tech group, but iOS devices are generally longer-supported at the OS level, so there is less need to update to stay on a device getting patches. But the Android group might care less about being on a device still getting patches.
iPhone users keep their phones longer than Android users, on average. 61% of iPhone users have owned their phone for more than 2 years, versus just 43% of Android users.
So patch availability does appear to have a significant impact on how long people keep their devices.
We see these ideas that are obviously nonsense all the time. This one has been picked apart by multiple people with industry experience already.
What these things are is essentially the venture capital version of the scam mails you get in your mailbox every day. If you make it big enough and insane enough, someone with more money than brains will think he spotted an opportunity that everyone else missed and will invest.
Why is it, you think, that 99% of these things vanish without a trace after an initial storm of publicity?
are you trying to help or just be contrary...
Single tasking: Just Say No.
