If you thought what they could fake in the late 60's was impressive, imagine what they an do now.
It just sucks to see them screw up the illusion with such trivial mistakes. Are you seriously expecting me to believe they'd go with a broken toilet? Or use Outlook?
Or iPhones?
I have not seen AI code that is *more* efficient than human code, yet. I have seen AI write efficient, compact code when pressed, very, very hard to do so, but only then. Otherwise, in my hands, and those of my developer colleagues, AI produces mostly correct, but inefficient, verbose code.
Could that change? Sure, I suppose. But right now it is not the case, and the value system that is driving auto-generated code (i.e., the training set of extant code), does not put a premium on efficiency.
Web browsers are absolute hogs, and, in part, that's because web sites are absolute hogs. Web sites are now full-blown applications that were written without regard to memory footprint or efficiency. I blame the developers who write their code on lovely, large, powerful machines (because devs should get good tools, I get that), but then don't suffer the pain of running them on perfectly good 8 GB laptops that *were* top-of-the line 10 years ago, but are now on eBay for $100. MS Teams is a perfect example of this. What a steaming pile of crap. My favored laptop is said machine, favored because of the combination of ultra-light weight and eminently portable size, and zoom works just fine on it, but teams is unusable. Slack is OK, if that's nearly the only web site you're visiting. Eight frelling GB to run a glorified chat room.
The thing that gets my goat, however, is that the laptop I used in the late 1990s was about the same form factor as this one, had 64 MB (yes, MB) of main memory, and booted up Linux back then just about as fast. If memory serves, the system took about 2 MB, once up. The CPU clock on that machine was in the 100 MHz range. Even not counting for the massive architectural improvements, my 2010s-era laptop should boot an order of magnitude faster. It does not.
Why? Because a long time ago, it became OK to include vast numbers of libraries because programmers were too lazy to implement something on their own, so you got 4, 5, 6 or more layers of abstraction, as each library recursively calls packages only slightly lower-level to achieve its goals. I fear that with AI coding, it will only get worse.
And don't get me started on the massive performance regression that so-called modern languages represent, even when compiled. Hell in a handbasket? Yes. Because CPU cycles are stupidly cheap now, and we don't have to work hard to eke out every bit of performance, so we don't bother.
A dummy load and some chemistry to use oxygen would do the same job with zero human risk.
If they're not putting boots on the Moon, they shouldn't have their asses in the rocket.
Remember kids, spaceflight is hard. Nature does not like us being in space, at all. She puts up serious, difficult barriers that we need to overcome. Just look how hard it was for a new program like Space X to start from scratch even with all of the existing knowledge developed by NASA, ESA, etc.. How many rapid unscheduled disassembly events did they suffer? I lost count. Even the Russians, who arguably have as much or more LEO experience than the US, continue to face challenges. Heck, so do we, as the current generation of engineers no longer has the direct experience from Gemini and Apollo to guide them. Space is deeply unforgiving of mistakes.
To the GP, if you think that your 5-second considered opinion is better than a fleet of talented folks, I'll wager that if you more time, did some research, you'd change your opinion. I hope you do.
In the end, the real solution is to be able to grow parts as they're needed, not grow an entire body requiring expensive maintenance that you might have to throw away after you harvest one critical part.
I've been expecting that eventual outcome since the early 2000s when we (as in someone in an academic lab) grew a 3rd kidney in a mouse by grafting stem cells from a donor.
I have tried it. It's not really a solution for me.
- good for watching local content
but
- netflix support is a kludge at best, unofficial and no 4k (is the plugin a web browser wrapper?)
- other streamers are in the same boat
- no F1TV support at all
I don't blame kodi, its the streaming services that are the root problem here. But I can't make them support open platforms and I understand why they don't.
The upshot is that picking up a dedicated streaming box seems to be the best solution to get official support from the streaming services. The boxes tend to generally work well with kodi/plex/jellyfin etc to give you a way to play your local content alongside the streamers own apps in a small remote-control friendly manner.
I like the roku and the shield pro -- although both have been adding ads to their home screens. I'll probably pickup an appleTV box next since its still pretty clean. Its bad enough the streaming services themselves are devolving into ad-ridden crap, but as long as the ads are limited to the app itself, and i can delete the app and cancel the service if it goes to far. So far netflix generally just pushes its own content which is fine, and F1 is ad-free unless you count all of f1 as just being a giant sponsor circus.
1. Was the legal request made appropriately? If no, bash the agency that issued it.
I tend to agree with the spirit of such comments, but in this case, Apple makes it clear in the TOS that it retains the right to disclose that information if it deems it appropriate. People pay for an anonymity service without reading the fine print
A little computer with Mint on it does a great job accessing streaming as well as my NAS. And it doesn't report my activities to anyone.
What are you using for the streaming services? Netflix etc? A web browser?
If so, that's a complete non-starter; it fails the ease of use expectations of watching TV of the wife using a remote control to turn it on and make it go. (and honestly it fails my own expectations for that matter too; having to reach for a keyboard or mouse to watch a movie or stream a show is just clunky). It also limits you from watching content in 4k.
At the moment, I've got a RokuHD of some sort on one TV, and an nvidia shield on another one. Plex, netflix, f1tv, and a couple other things on both of them. The TV remote can fairly seamlessly control the TV/soundbar and the attached box and it works well, and passes the usability test, but both devices are still more ad-laden than I want.
I've also got computers and consoles hooked up to TVs for gaming and what not, but i find them utterly miserable to use for streaming. Their is no app for linux that I'm aware of. And even the app for Windows is regularly just complete ass to use, and its a PITA to switch from plex to netflix and back etc, and using them with a remote control is pretty trashy. So I've been using the aforementioned boxes for streaming as the least awful way to run things for some years now.
But if there's a better way now, I'm listening.
The perchlorates are a serious sticking issue. While I continue to be amazed at human ingenuity, the remediation problem for Martian soil seems to be very difficult. Not only that, but the perchlorates are *everywhere*, which means the entire environment is fundamentally poisonous to humans. That doesn't make it impossible, but it raises the bar another notch where we are already potentially dealing with low atmospheric pressure, extremely high CO2 concentration, very low O2 concentration, serious cold, etc. Again, not impossible, but Mars is almost as inhospitable as the Moon.
Today, it'll probably never get that far
They started building it 2022, and expect it to be operational in May. In other words: its already pretty much finished.
You are a bit late to the party to shit on its prospects of getting off the ground.
Yeah, their assumption that a sterile planetary body will not spontaneously develop this chemistry is not a really solid null hypothesis, especially given the number of demonstrations that amino acids fall out of proto-Earth conditions.
Yes. So far, the LLM tools seem to be much more useful for general research purposes, analysing existing code, or producing example/prototype code to illustrate a specific point. I haven't found them very useful for much of my serious work writing production code yet. At best, they are hit and miss with the easy stuff, and by the time you've reviewed everything with sufficient care to have confidence in it, the potential productivity benefits have been reduced considerably. Meanwhile even the current state of the art models are worse than useless for the more research-level stuff we do. We try them out fairly regularly but they make many bad assumptions and then completely fail to generate acceptable quality code when told no, those are not acceptable and they really do need to produce a complete and robust solution of the original problem that is suitable for professional use.
But one of the common distinctions between senior and junior developers -- almost a litmus test by now -- is their attitude to new, shiny tools. The juniors are all over them. The seniors tend to value demonstrable results and as such they tend to prefer tried and tested workhorses to new shiny things with unproven potential.
That means if and when the AI code generators actually start producing professional standard code reliably, I expect most senior developers will be on board. But except for relatively simple and common scenarios ("Build the scaffolding for a user interface and database for this trivial CRUD application that's been done 74,000 times before!") we don't seem to be anywhere near that level of competence yet. It's not irrational for seniors to be risk averse when someone claims to have a silver bullet but both the senior's own experience and increasing amounts of more formal study are suggesting that Brooks remains undefeated.
The destruction was with the previous Doctor, under Chris Chibnall.
Most proof of work are on synthetic data or toy data, e.g., matching Waldo in a where is waldo image. You won't use the network later to spoil the fun of finding Waldo, you later fine-tune it on the objects you're looking for.
The difference being that finding waldo in a sea of faces almost but not quite waldo, some with the right hat but no glasses, some with the stripe shirt but no hat, etc etc is a lot more representative of the real problem.
It always starts with a synthetic or toy problem but, again, its about selecting a good representative proof-of-concept to be for it to be convincing.
If you showed me the exact same waldo image recognition system and demonstrated it finding waldo on a blank page, it would in fact be the same system, but this demo would not "prove" the concept very convincingly, right? The engine is the same, but the 'proof' in the proof-of-concept is far less persuasive.
120 bytes of binary for a dead simple cpu, likewise, is just not very persuasive. Its a very weak demonstration like using the image recognition system find waldo on a blank page.
The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.
