list games

He was busy that day helping Ms. Sanchez pick the right size for her new bigger boobs.

Which may be the one thing about this whole situation that cheeses Donald Trump off the most...

backup your data to maybe an on-premise backup dump for your cloud.

Ok, name some other plausible use of these glasses? In my opinion, even Silk Road had a better alibi.

Will the old trick of outlining your license plate with a bunch of high power IR LEDs obscure your plate from the camera, while still allowing human eyes to read them....?

Because I was closely following the field at the time?

Find an example of anyone meaningful in the field expecting these things beforehand.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

You also can't just pretend that malicious leaking of data to Meta isn't inherent to using such glasses.

No, your argument is superficial with a significant flaw that intent is baked into public use of both Flock and Meta's glasses. While there might be legitimate uses for smart glasses, such as manufacturing or remote surgery (I am going on limb here, Meta glasses are not used in such way as far as I know), the vast, overwhelming usage is to produce non-consenting public recordings of people and leak them to Meta for further data mining.

It's possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Flickering might work just as well, or better. Less energy and heat needed, and might screw up exposure or auto levelling. I have not tried it.

The problem is that if you walk around in public with a high brightness IR LED on your head, sooner or later some minimum wage security goon is going to notice their camera is blinded and get upset.

"will" - I'm not talking about metaphysics. I am talking about the fact that models demonstrably - to the point that you can detect and manipulate them in realtime - engage in metacognition (thinking about their own thoughts), persistent forward planning (intent), unexpressed thoughts, and a whole slew of other things.

You do not have to see them as equivalent as humans. But you do need to come to terms with the fact that they absolutely do do these things.

Deception implies intent, models do not have intent

Try reading more than a paragraph or two into the above link before commenting.

The provided links present arguments supporting the idea that LLMs, transformer models, reason in a manner similar to the brain.

It does not "present arguments", it literally lets researchers modify, add, or delete their thoughts in realtime and observe the changes in their behavior. It observes unexpressed plans for malicious behavior forming before said plans are actually carried out, with researchers being able to remove those unexpressed plans from the model's J-space, or insert them into an "innocent" model and watch it then implement the malicious acts. It shows that plans for deception are not merely fleeting, but can be organized far in advance and persist for protracted periods of time. Yes, LLMs do plan out deception. Living in denial of this fact helps nobody.

This isn't a conversation about "consciousness" or "qualia", this is a conversation about what models actually do and how. If you want to avoid metaphysics, by all means, it usually derails a conversation anyway. But models absolutely do plan and rationalize actions, ahead of time, unexpressed in either output or CoT. And sometimes those unexpressed plans are malicious.

One of the things that the J-space helped let us do was realize that our previously comforting results on a number of alignment tests shouldn't have been as comforting as we thought - for example, you can see a model, put into a test scenario, realizing it's in a test scenario, wherein, a near-zero rate of malicious behavior is to be expected. Yet when they remove the realization from its J-space, the rate of malicious behavior spikes.

Yeah, the lack of at least monitoring, I found shocking. I figured that they not just had smaller models constantly monitoring their outputs and true CoT to look for malicious behavior, but also were say constantly doing attribution graphs and J-space queries, also plumbed into LLMs, to look for malicious thoughts and plans. And it turns out, lol, no, they're just given free reign to do whatever the hell they want, with nothing watching them at all.

Why are we running python on microcontrollers, exactly? It's the wrong thing in production, so why is it the right thing for education? Training upcoming engineers to use the right thing for the job is pretty fundamental; running an interpreted language on bare-metal hardware flies in the face of building that intuition.

Today's microcontrollers may be more powerful than you realize. It's not just the 8-bit processors running at 2MHz anymore. An ESP32 is a dual core processor running at 200 or 400MHz. They don't run a high level OS (just FreeRTOS).

And the RPi Zeros are really powerful 32-bit ARM or RISC-V processors running at several hundred MHz as well.

Python is perfectly fine for these processors. And you might think it's overkill, but so what? Most of these tasks are one-offs. Perhaps someone doing a bit of cosplay wants to have some lights on their costume, or drive an LCD. You expect them to contract out someone to do the software which is likely just displaying a bunch of graphics or cycling some LEDs?

Heck, some things in the maker world have become ubiquitous - like a CYD. It stands for "Cheap Yellow Display" because it's a stupidly cheap 2" LCD (in a yellow frame) that can be hooked up to a ESP32 board and with a few libraries you're drawing graphics on it with a total spend of under $10. One off projects.

The high end microcontrollers are pushing out the old 8-bit AVRs and PICs (which mainly hang around for legacy use nowadays), and the RPi Zero ones RP3050 and 2050 processors are pushing down the ceiling of 16-bit and even 32-bit ARM microcontrollers.

Heck, you mourn the day because it's easier to blink an LED with a 3 cent Chinese microcontroller than it is using "traditional" methods (e.g., a 555).

There are thousands of barrels of nuclear waste rotting away on the floor of the ocean just off the coast of southern California near Catalina island. That was the previous plan for disposing of nuclear waste: just dump it in the sea.

The barrels have decayed to the point where attempting to collect them would almost certainly cause them to rupture and spill their contents. They will rupture and leak if left as they are -just not all at once.

Water is actually a really radiation shield. It's why it's used as a moderator in nuclear reactors. Contrary to popular belief, water is required for the reaction to continue. It's a moderator, because what happens is the two neutrons emitted during fission of uranium come out too fast to be properly captured by other uranium atoms to spur ongoing fission. Water is used to slow down those neutrons to where they are more readily absorbed by uranium. The problem is, water is also used to cool the reactor, so while the reaction stops or slows down significantly, a tremendous amount of heat is still generated from the remaining reactions. Thus a "meltdown" refers to the fuel rods exceeding the melting point of uranium and it melting and pooling at the bottom of the reactor.

That said, the casks at the bottom of the ocean, as long as they stay there, will actually be fairly safe even if they rupture. Even the wildlife can get fairly close (inches) before it becomes dangerous to them.

So sadly, no three-eyed Simpsons fish is likely to happen.