The left has become incapable of recognizing it' own authoritarianism or just how far and fast it has moved away from the center. Since 2008, the American right is 2% further to the right, while the Left moved 31% further left. That's far enough from the center to be unable to distinguish it from the far-right. Bill Clinton probably looks like Rush from there now.
I don't give a shit about movement to the right or left, not right now. I just want basic competence and support for the rule of law, because those are the things we've totally lost under the current GOP. A bit of compassion would be good, too. What I wouldn't give to have Dubya back.
That was actually my thought. It wasn't until I got to the mention of Twitter than I figured out they didn't mean X11.
I did think switching from X11 to Wayland was a funny thing to post publicly about. And a funny thing for
He's running his messaging strategy like a reality show. It's designed to keep people off balance, uncertain, distracted and misinformed. It's designed to encourage you to "tune in" a few hours later.
I think you give him too much credit. I don't think his "messaging strategy" has any design, nor is it a strategy. It's just Trump saying whatever shit bubbles to the top of what sometimes passes for a mind. And it's random and changes every four hours because he's random and changes what he believes every four hours. Or every four minutes.
I don't think he even "learned" to act like a reality show... I think this is just who he is and who he always has been, albeit with an added layer of growing dementia. He was moderately successful on reality TV not because he figured out how to be moderately successful on reality TV, but because his normal personality, style and complete lack of ethics, morality or consistency just happens to be perfect for reality TV.
It does not look like this did anything to "stop nukes". Iran still has the material. Iran can still make nukes with not too much effort. The main reason they stopped is that they do not actually need to have nukes. But after this moronic attacks, they got freshly motivated in that area.
I think after this moronic attack, they now know they don't actually need nukes, at least not until the world loses its appetite for oil, or finds other sources that make Gulf state production irrelevant.
A human is able to tell if an LLM is wrong. The opposite isn't true.
Also, even if this fallacious claim were true, it wouldn't actually support Arrogant-Bastard's claim, which wasn't about the state of AI now, but a claim about "intrinsic properties", meaning it would be true forever.
A human is able to tell if an LLM is wrong. The opposite isn't true.
Nonsense. LLMs point out my mistakes all the time. And I point out theirs. At this point there's more of the latter than the former, but both absolutely happen all the time.
Executives at Google have surprisingly little control over technical decisions.
The executives at google define the policy, the technical crew implement it.
Not as much as you might think. Definitely not as much as at most companies.
I think it's for a certain kind of workflow. If you want to watch YouTube videos it kind of does nothing useful. If you want to swap between documents and reference materials a lot, much more helpful. I think the answer is "It sucks because it's for multitasking, not because it is a bad idea."
I think it depends less on workflow and more on screen layout. If you run your browser maximized on a landscape-mode display, there's a lot of horizontal real estate that isn't very well-used, while vertical space is at a premium. So it makes sense to move tabs to the side.
On the other hand, if you don't maximize your window but keep it as narrow as possible (so you can see other windows) but just wide enough that sites render well, then you'll probably prefer them on top.
On the gripping hand, if you're like me and run your browser full-screen on a portrait mode screen, then you have gobs of vertical real-estate and tabs on top definitely makes sense.
(I have three monitors, a 32" (landscape) in the center, which is where my IDE, editors, and "focused" work lives, and a 27" portrait orientation monitor on each side. The left one has a full-screen browser window for work stuff and the right one has a full-screen browser window for personal stuff. It's fantastic.)
Says who?
The AI's intent is defined by the way it is trained, and Gemini is trained to emphasize what the google executives want emphasized.
Mmmm.... if anything it's "what the Google engineers want emphasized". Executives at Google have surprisingly little control over technical decisions. For nearly all of Google's existence it's been an almost completely bottom-up driven company and while in the last few years management has been trying to exert more control it's a very, very slow process.
It's actually the engineering-driven culture that produces Google's infamous tendency to abandon products. Stuff gets built because some engineers think it's a good idea and convince their managers to let them run with it. Then eventually it gets boring and engineers tend to wander off to other teams in search of something interesting. If the product has managed to achieve significant userbase and/or revenue stream (and keep in mind that both are measured on Google scales; so anything less than 100M users or $1B/year is "not signficant").
In a top-down company products don't get built until they have significant executive support, which requires a fairly detailed plan, which gets executed and adjusted, and if an exec's project is in trouble it will get support. At Google products kind of wander out the door and into the world and if they happen to be a hit, great, if not, well, unless there are legally-binding contracts obligating the company to support something, it just gets shut down. Even with the projects that the executive leadership are really excited about (like AI!), their influence is mostly limited to shoveling resources at it.
Anyway, the point is that execs likely have little to no influence on Gemini training beyond setting very broad guidelines, and even those might not have much effect.
That's not because they're broken -- which is why I put "fix" in quotes in the previous paragraph. It's because that's how they work: it's an intrinsic property of all such models and no amount of computing power and/or model tweaking can change that: all it can do is obfuscate it. And obfuscated problems are far worse than obvious problems.
That's a strong statement. Can you explain why that isn't also true of human brains? What's the intrinsic difference?
Is it just me or are these three platforms the arena of bad decision making in startup businesses? When somebody tries to lure me off of social media into one of these three platforms, alarm bells start ringing in my mind. If you're leading your business with communications on Signal or Whatsapp, just know that I for one will not be taking your business seriously.
Artemis II is breaking Apollo 13's record by about 4100 miles. The primary reason they're going further is because they're passing much farther from the moon, about 4000 miles, compared to 158 miles for Apollo 13. The moon is also a little further from Earth, accounting for the other 250 miles.
I am not an Economist. I am an honest man! -- Paul McCracken
