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
Those mitigations could cause other problems down the line, so it makes sense that Microsoft didn't want to deal with those for Windows 11.
IOW: "We've only got $3.5T in capital to work with, so this is just too hard for us to figure out. You'll have to switch to an OS made by unpaid volunteers."
The movie analogy is old and outdated.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.
What will they call it in the US ?
We should call it "job incomplete".
Most common metals have a simple one or two syllable name: Iron, Copper, Tin, Zinc, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Gold, etc.
The USA recognized that to some extent and got started by chopping off one extraneous syllable, paring it down from five to four. However, once it was realized that Al would be a common everyday material like iron, we should have gone ahead and pruned it all the way down to two syllables, maybe something like "Alem".
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?
I can see why they ignored it for so long: having multiple places to put dot files for a single app is irritating.
Not nearly as irritating as having dozens of random dot subdirectories in the root of your home directory.
The first issue costs a few developers a few days of their time to fix. The second is a problem that nags millions of users for eternity.
Because at this rate, by my math, the number of AI cores Google requires will exceed the number of atoms in the visible universe within about 120 years.
What I typically do is leave in the no-name AAA alkaline batteries that the remote came with, and it works for a couple of years until I move on to newer gear.
Then after I've left it idle for 15 years, I'll come back and open the remote to discover that the batteries have leaked all over the inside and destroyed it.
This.
My take on vibe coding is simple: Don't.
At least not the way most people understand it. I'm totally ok with having an AI do the tedious work. But only do it on stuff you could do yourself (i.e. you're just saving time). Because otherwise, you'll never be able to maintain it.
This, in general, is the whole problem: The entire "vibe coding" movement only worries about CREATING code. But in the real world, maintaining, updating, refactoring, reviewing, testing, bugfixing, etc. etc. are typically more effort than writing it in the first place.
If it was a reasonable balance of risk and payback, then they could get a private loan like everybody else.
... going to corporations. One billion dollars no less. Socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
Oh stop it. This is a loan to Constellation energy to help finance the cost to restart a nuclear power plant by 2027.
Why should he stop exactly explaining the situation?
Lenders take on the risk of a default, and when the government lends money, the risk is socialized.
The loan is being made to a private, for-profit corporation, who will be able to keep any profits generated by this scheme (however unlikely that may be).
Whatever activity the loan is for is irrelevant, whether it's for cranking up a crusty old nuclear power plant, or for bailing out a Wall Street firm during a market panic.
You have a message from the operator.
