Also, $70K is the median *household* income. The median individual income in Omaha is $41.6K. As gtall said, factor in taxes, healthcare, rent etc... then factor an extra $500-$1000 to register and title your new car, another $1000 annually for vehicle maintenance (except it'll be more than that because for $20K you're buying a used car), and factor in whatever you're spending on gas...

> driving a car, industrial control, vibe coding are bottlenecked by hallucinations

No they're not, this isn't 2022 anymore. Let me reiterate, they're fairly trivial to spot and largely accounted for in serious autonomous systems. The issue is monkey paw property of the LLM - they're maliciously compliant by seeking shortcuts too greedily while skipping over subtler ontologies that aren't verbalized in corpus enough so as to differentiate into a concept ("carwash is typically somewhere you might want to drive to" wasn't solidified -> hilarious stupidity ensues). This sort of mistake isn't hallucination, but just plain stupidity of someone who's never quite understood what carwash is for, but only heard em mentioned few times in a book.

Yann LeCun does point at this, though I think he's too optimistic that DNNs could fill those gaps by having online learning experience in a closed loop. The way GPTs work is embarassing parallel SGD that you simply can't do when learning one speck of experience at a time. Would need to invent entire new optimization algorithm that scales just as SGD if not better, yet works sequentially.

I mean dumb humans are confidently wrong (hallucinating) all the time and especially humans in managerial positions he's positing this should replace.
Although LLMs hallucinations are driven by biases alien to humans.

This seems like a quick cash grab aimed at AI antis of Ed Zitron ilk, who famously insist that "AI is real only if it is never wrong and never hallucinates", but they never provide any insight why the AI needs to be always 100% correct.

Meanwhile, the real problem is that LLMs simply descend into madness and go off the rails it's not hallucination per se, but simply wandering off meaningful goals. Mere hallucinated errors are comparably simple problem and possible to correct for with checks and balances on authority, compared to more fundamental inability of LLM "intellect" not turning into a mad king (whether always correct or not, being mad is trouble).

And this isn't possible. The chances of this plan coming to pass are precisely zero. It's a fantasy. Whether it's actually a good idea or not-- that's completely irrelevant.

The real-world effect of this proposal is that it makes the Democrats look like a bunch of loopy socialists. Since we're heading into some *very* important and *very* tightly-contested elections, this is a tone-deaf and deeply irresponsible move on Bernie's part. (If it was anyone other than Bernie, I'd suspect that he was a deep-cover Republican operative trying to discredit the opposition).

Taken by itself, that observation ("this phenomenon arises from individual behaviour rather than collectively emerging due to pedestrian-pedestrian or pedestrian-boundary interactions") doesn't quite rule out the hypothesis. I'd need to know more.

For example, I don't know how big the "circles" are. If the pedestrians are found to walk in relatively small circles, then they are effectively "patrolling" a small area of space and they know that any new pedestrians (or other threats) are necessarily going to emerge from outside of that area; they're going to keep their attention oriented primarily outside the circle and are going to keep their right side facing outside. So the very first pedestrian to enter the space will instinctively start circling counter-clockwise, even if there are no other pedestrians to influence his behavior. On the other hand, if the "circling" behavior consists of walking the perimeter of a large room, then you'd expect the pedestrian to circle clockwise, and the "self-defense" idea wouldn't fit.

Again, I don't know if the data supports, contradicts, or is neutral to the "dominant side is for self-defense" idea, I'd need to read the actual article in depth (sadly I don't have time to do that this morning). So it's just a bit of speculation on my part.

I think we instinctively turn our dominant side towards the side we think represents a greater security threat. If you're walking alongside a wall, for instance, you will usually feel safer with your left side facing the wall and your right side facing open space. If you're walking in a circle and you think there are more threats from outside the circle than from inside the circle, you'll want to walk counterclockwise so you dominant arm is sticking out of the circle. (Assuming here that the crowd is mostly right-handed).

I don't know if their data supports that idea, but it's a testable idea.

Three observations about your post:

1) The idea that quantum tunnelling plays an important role in brain function is interesting but speculative. If you look at the existing literature on neuroscience and the neural basis of learning, you'll see that 99.999% of it simply makes no reference to "quantum tunnelling".
2) There are many systems which can technically be called "non-deterministic", but for which non-deterministic part just isn't important. The opening of a sodium channel in a cardiac cell is ultimately non-deterministic and probabilistic (you certainly can't project the trajectory of every ion), but the errors tend to cancel out and just aren't important for predicting how the cell behaves. To paraphrase Isaac Asimov: We can't predict the behavior of individual atoms, but we know that if we have a closed container full of helium atoms and we double the temperature, the pressure will exactly double.
3) If we *did* make the discovery that "quantum tunnelling" (or other probabilistic, non-deterministic behavior) is somehow essential for brain function... and that's a VERY big if... there is no reason to think that this behavior couldn't be emulated by a machine.

I dont use GPL if I can avoid it, even if it means I have to pay. My software is all OSS as in OPEN for anyone to use, via BSD or MIT licenses, and none of it will ever be GPL or any of the derivatives that are designed to intentionally make software have 0 monetary value.

I dont prevent GPL software from using my code, but GPL prevents me from using theirs.

GPL isnt about freedom, its about ensuring no one can make money

Thats not actually the point of OSS. And RMS is not god and does not define it

The point of OSS is to not get fucked by the vendor. The point is not getting locked out of your shit because the vendor was taken over by some shitbag company like Broadcom and completely changes the rules and then holds your existing use of it hostage because they can. Or refuses to spend their time dealing with your scenario for your business. Or a thousand other reasons that have 0 to do with paying for it.

GPL nutjobs have this silly fantasy about never paying for it, but they have corrupted the actual meaning for that purpose, not what was intended.

The GPL virus has always been problematic for business, which is why the smart ones use MIT/Apache/BSD software in their products and why ACTUAL OPEN SOURCE advocates dont use GPL for their stuff, its more restrictive than pretty much any source license Ive ever seen.

Open source means the source is available for you to use under clear guidelines that apply to EVERYONE equally ... transfer of money for it has exactly dick to do with it.

GPL is just a fetish for those who refuse to understand how the real world works. Which is why no one can name a successful company that ONLY uses GPL software. Every one you want to name sells proprietary software to make money while piggy backing on GPL software. I challenge you to name one that doesnt.

Yes, Linus and Linux are successful ... but you notice they didn't follow that nutjob shit in GPL 3?

If you want Open, GPL ain't it, its restrictive as shit. Microsoft has licenses that arent nearly as restrictive... for a fee. Microsoft will hand you the windows source code - for a fee, under terms that meet the OSS definition but not in a way that let's you sell/steal/copy theft it.

GPL itself isnt evil, its goals are honorable. But 99.9999% of GPL nutjobs only like it cause they can use it without compensation. For them it has nothing to do with 'open' and everything to do with being cheap assholes who dont think people should be compensated for their work. They cant use it themselves, someone else has to make the binaries they goon over, or build system for them.

GPL is almost always used as a weapon.

FUCK YOU

How about the phone companies stop allowing spoofing of numbers you dont own as already required by law?

Its not even a little bit hard, the infrastructure is in place, SOME phone companies block from numbers not registered to the caller already, but plenty claim exceptions because it'll interrupt legit traffic ...

GOOD.

If you bring your own number and cant prove ownership, fuck off. In the US we already have databases for this that every phone company uses for call routing and number portability between carriers. We KNOW where its anchored, if you arent calling from there, you need to register additionally and this should NOT be done by easy to use APIs that spammed can exploit.

If you legit need to spoof a from number from a different carrier (plenty of legit reasons), it needs to be registered with a 1 month waiting period before allowed and $10/number fee paid before use, monthly.

Watch how quick that shit ends. Call centers can still use different inbound and outbound carriers - but they gotta wait a month and pay for it. That would utterly destroy almost every illegitimate spoof and do basically nothing against legit ones.

And no call center needs large swaths of numbers to fake, so cost us minimal.

I'm honestly curious to know what this perception of yours is based on. Do you work in audio production or a related field? Why do you feel that Logic is "a tool for amateurs", despite the fact that professionals use it?

That's simply not true. It may not be the DAW with the biggest market share, but there are a ton of working professionals (including some rather famous ones) who like the workflow of Logic and use it as their primary DAW.

DACs are a dime a dozen and you aren't able to tell the difference on between whatever silly expensive headphones you use and my $30 pair with a 3.5mm port and good drivers. DACs were a solved problem more than 20 years ago, support circuitry at this point is also a pretty well solved problem for the most part - you have to go out of your way to fuck up a reference design to make it bad enough for your claim to be true.

A mac neo is certainly producing a quality signal that I'd bet a paycheck on that you can not tell the difference with audio equipment to help you, certainly not with your ears. I'm fairly confident you couldn't tell the difference between your choice digital headphones and my $30 3.5mm set.

And my 3.5mm device works all the time, never goes dead - which is pretty much what is constantly the state of wireless devices. Its absolutely silly to think like we're in 1992 and you're arguing a gravis ultrasound vs sb16 DAC.

A 3.5mm port is cheaper and smaller than any other port your are going to use in its place, including USB-C. If your device is so short on real estate place that it can't afford the space for a 3.5mm port - it better be a foldable phone or something that fits in your pocket cause pretty much every laptop has room to spare something like a 3.5mm port

I can tell by your comment that you own lots of monster cables so you get that warm sound out of your digital signal.

Because if it doesn't, its not a rival, its just another PC clone knock off wannabe.

I don't want a neo for the hardware - I want one so my kid can have OSX and not have to deal with half assed operating systems.

Almost no one buys a macbook because of the hardware. Don't get me wrong, its quality stuff - but its not the most cost effective unless you buy immediately after a good hardware refresh, otherwise its over priced and not worth running any other OS on.

People by Macs for OS X.