I switched to Ubuntu, but I know Redhat pushes their patches upstream like crazy.

Do I need to worry as well?

That's fine.

If we don't support our media we're going to lose our national identity.

It's not that. LLMs reproduce an output of consciousness, but they way they do so isn't fundamentally any different than a tape recorder or even a book. It's a deterministic process that we can fully reproduce by doing calculations on a piece of paper.

It's not that there's some "magic" in our brains, but there's obviously a very complex process at work that we don't understand. It's also true that the "neural networks" used to run LLMs have only the most superficial similarity to actual brains. Just because LLMs can produce similar reasoning it doesn't mean they're suddenly able to produce other second order effects.

Is it possible that LLMs reproduce this process? We can't authoritatively say no if we don't understand the process. But that's no different from saying a rock way also be conscious.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Dawkins doesn't have any.

Nah, there's more than enough smoke to conclude that Altman's style rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Whether you think that's a problem or a virtue is another matter.

Early users testing the service have touted competitive perks, including 3% cash back on eligible purchases

That's about the same as merchant fees, meaning the transactions themselves are probably a loss leader once you factor in all the stuff like fraud and dispute resolution.

I'm guessing Musk sees the real value as the dataset of shopping behaviours. Either that or that cash back rate is going to plummet once the service gets established.

Not really, the tech companies have been doing this for years.

They hire a bunch of folks at high salaries, but not all of those work out, and managers hate laying folks off.

So they make big across-the-board cuts and now everybody from top to bottom is forced to make a bunch of tough decisions about who to cut.

You don't get rid of the worst 10% of your work force, but on average, the 10% you lose is less valuable than the 90% you keep.

And then you go hire some more.

Or force them to keep their constellations lower, which means the satellites have to carry more fuel to fight drag, but if they fail they'll just deorbit in a few years. You can go a bit lower and use air-breathing ion thrusters as well, and those will deorbit even faster.

The big danger is the stuff in higher orbits that takes 100-1000 years to come down.

I mean, a small online bookstore pivoted to become one of the most foundational structural elements of the internet.

No, they're arguing there's ways to use their software to commit an illegal act, which is true of literally anything.

I can't imagine anyone making the argument that using AI tools to rewrite code in another language removes the copyright.

Not exactly, because the amount of stearates that came off the gloves would be fairly random, so there's no way to apply a general correction. You might not even know what kind of gloves they used in the experiment!

That doesn't mean you throw out the results, but you maybe mark those results and say there was potential factor unaccounted for and the results needs to be replicated.

The gold-standard tasteful way to handle stuff like this is cast a friend of the original actor. An example is Jon Lovitz replacing Phil Hartman on Newsradio.

I agree they could possibly get away with AI since it's being driven by his cast mates, but I don't think they'd try it.

It's an interesting journalistic debate. On the one hand their job is to report, not to help people stay anonymous.

But Banksy is part performance art, and his anonymity is part of that, by revealing his identity you arguably destroy the art work.

I feel like this expose kinda gets forgotten because Banksy was never completely anonymous, the reason he's not really known is that people recognize the anonymity is part of it and they don't want to know who he is.

Windmills don't kill corn. Windmills don't kill clams. They might scare some fish initially due to low frequency vibrations but they will probably adapt. The bird-killing issue is a thing but they've found that they can minimize it somewhat with different paint on the blades.

Yes there are negative issues, just like any other infrastructure project, but you have to weigh them, and you can't let your own ideological alignment get in the way.

Trump hates windmills because he hates how they look near his properties. He has a particular issue and then builds an ideological theme to support it. People get roped into ideology and stop weighing the costs and risks in favor of being a *movement*.

Opposite side of the isle it's just as bad, they're terrible at seeing the benefits of nuclear on ideological growns. They hate burning fossil fuels so bury their head in the sand at plastic incineration being more efficient and overall less carbon intensive than recycling programs.

Offshore windfarms aren't any more harmful than offshore oil rigs, and in practice offshore oil rigs are beneficial for the local ecosystem by adding a habitat (excellent fishing btw).

It's not like we didn't have police, just not what we think of as a modern police force. We had organized law enforcement consisting of sheriffs and constables, with the power to deputize when needed.

This is much the same as we didn't have organized fire brigades, instead we had government officials with the power to organize a response to fires by recruiting more manpower from the populace to fight fires.

Asking if we need a police force because we didn't previously have one is like asking if we need a fire department because previously we only had an informal volunteer fire department. These things only worked in the past because the need was small enough that we didn't have the economy of scale to support a professional firefighting or police force, but with growth, the professionalization required necessitated the formation of these things.

Also the "cops are just slavecatchers" thing is a largely made up and exaggerated talking point by the far left that they repeat ad-nauseum. The first professional police forces in the US were formed in northern cities like Boston and were decidedly *NOT* slavecatchers, but rather organized out of groups normally deputized to enforce the law, turning them into professional employees -- in much the same way a volunteer fire department becomes a full time employer in cities that grow enough to need it.

Some early southern professional police and sheriff departments *were* constituted out of slave patrols, as these were people who were often deputized, but these were not the first police departments, nor did they constitute the majority of them, not even in the south.