Wow I guess someone had to miss him; I thought he was ridiculously overrated myself and didn't care for a lot of his design work over the years.
If you need Ive back in your life, you could check out the new Ferrari
Remember kids, when you want to understand at a very basic level what an act does, take the name and turn it to its opposite. The Clarity Act is -- without knowing anything else -- much more likely to be about leagalizing obfuscation than any else.
Distributed power means having 2-3 orders of magnitude more power sources than with centralized systems. That increases the likelihood of an accident by the same factor.
In the US, we have already had near-disaster level nuclear accidents with about 100 total plants. Let's be generous and say that only one was really bad, TMI. That's a 1% failure rate where "failure" means the potential for disaster-level accident. If you want to remind yourself of what disaster-level accidents look like, recall what happened in Ukraine at the Chernobyl power plant, which was caused by human error. And recall that TMI was also caused by human error.
With 2-3 orders of magnitude more nuclear plants at 1% failure rate, that means 100-1000 nuclear disasters in the US, unless, somehow, we are able to engineer plants that are 2-3 orders of magnitude safer, and can find operators that make 2-3 orders of magnitude fewer bone-headed mistakes. As an engineer, albeit a non-nuclear one, I find that a daunting challenge. Yes, we as a society are capable of manufacturing at six and seven nines, but that's when we have lots and lots and lots of practice making things. Right now, nuclear plants only have two nines, with most of the relevant design and construction experience aged out. There aren't enough power plants to be made to develop that expertise, and we'll have plenty of disasters along the way as we learn, where disasters have centuries-long consequences.
So distributed nuclear power? No. Frelling. Thank. You.
Exactly. Just because a design is new with shiny gadgets does not mean it is automatically better than what has been previously on sale.
The sooner the newer generations understand this idea is nothing more than pure marketing hype, the sooner we can break away from and reject the enshittification.
What it also highlights is how poor Russia's technology is, despite being a country previously famous for it's scientists and mathematicians
Part of this is a myth perpetuated by Russia. The old scientific fame Russia claims is typically the old Soviet scientific fame, of which Ukraine was a significant, if not the most significant contributor
Under Putin, Russia lost a lot of that brain power. Ukraine never did, and despite being poorer per capita than Russia, it saw its old Soviet Ukraine science intelligentsia pivot into IT (which was one of Ukraine's few thriving sectors before the war)
This is a big lesson for the ages: human capital matters.
The key is that China is not passing its key AI technology to Russia...
Keeping the war going on is in China's interest as it weakens both Europe and Russia but probably it is not worth as much as giving its technology to Russia...
Even if China were to pass its AI tech to Russia, Russia no longer has the industrial base, nor the liquid assets to take advantage of it. And that's not counting the massive brain drain Russia experienced when almost 2 million men (many of them in tech) left at the start of the war.
Ukraine, OTH, hasn't suffered that type of brain drain and, thanks to Western support, it can carry a war economy and build AI-powered drone tech at scale.
This was a war for Russia to win if it hadn't become so incompetent and corrupt under Putin (and thank God for that).
Leadership matters.
Do you really have to give a platform to this kind of Neocon war propaganda on your tech forum?
News you don't like == propaganda?
Shit is happening on the tech front in the Russo-Ukrainian war with spillovers in the Middle East. We are witnessing a battleshift paradigm shift not unlike the widespread adoption of gunpowder, airpower and/or information technology....
Oh my sweet summer child.
You know, as opposed to the inconvenient truth that maybe, just maybe a government program spending tens of millions of dollars every year, is a complete waste of time and money regardless of the political party involved?
This reminds me of every single management moron that dismantled IT systems monitoring to save money because nothing happens anyway , ignoring that it's not that nothing happens but that the monitoring provides a way to see trends and take preemptive actions before SHTF.
Canonical should pay the Internet Archive to keep a read only copy available.
Better, yet, it seems that projects that rely on paste.bin discussions should have been using a source control repository to keep them.
People need to treat discussions as the "live" part of technical documentation (which opens another can of worms, obviously.) But, if it is not source-controlled, assume it is ephemeral, or that it doesn't exist.
This also applies to stuff we cite in Stack Overflow. It's handy to cite a finding when documenting a code change, hack, or design decision based on an answer found in SO. But for very important stuff, additional documentation must exist somewhere, preferably source-controlled.
Yours is a far more eloquent way of saying what I had intended to: why is this on Slashdot? Is there any relevance at all? I fail to see it.
If these athletes were coached by AI, well... maybe, but that's a stretch. But they're not; they are just taking more extreme measures to performance enhancement than other athletes. And while I know (and employ) some smart jocks, I had the same experience as you in secondary school, because I, too, was not a jock.
They recently bragged about how much they were getting done with AI vibe-coding.
Could it be related to the wave of bugs? Say it ain't so!
Are you talking solely internal thought processes that are never externalized in any way?
Exactly yes. You don't need a license to "copy" something to your mind.
You technically do need a license to copy something to a disk or to RAM. A number of cases around hacking/cracking have hinged even on the nuance that the hacker, by violating the "terms and conditions", no longer had a software license to make the "copy" of the software that was loaded from disk to RAM for example, and it was therefore copyright infringement.
In any case, yes, you are of course also correct that although you are free to remember anything, what you produce from that memory *may* be an infringing copy or infringing derivative work that requires a license.
But the difference of course, is that the LLM itself is already an infringing derivative work before it even produces anything. Your mind isn't.
And everything the LLM produces is basically just taking that collection of derivative works, and rolling dice on it to generate output. The output is a strictly a function of the input. On some level, it can't "not produce" derivative works. The best it does is slice and dice so many of them together that we can't tell.
I suppose that might be what the total sum of what human creativity is too, and some people genuinely believe that. It appears to be a surprisingly capable facsimile in some respects. But most people think there is more to the spark of human experience of creativity than *just* that, at least for now.
"It is no more "theft" than you are."
Yes. It is. Quite different in fact.
You see, Rei,
No amount of argument that "its doing the same thing as you are" changes that fact. What happens in a machine is covered by copyright law. What happens in a human mind is not.
It doesn't actually matter if the two are doing the same thing.
One is copyright infringement aka "theft", and one isn't.
You can potentially make the argument that there is no ethical difference if you like, but legally, they are worlds apart. Don't confuse ethics with law.
Even if they are doing the same thing, perhaps collectively society wants to carve out exclusions for copyright law to enshrine human beings right to see and remember things without requiring a license to do while continuing to want to require machines to require licensing to perpetuate the socio/economic contract that copyright is supposed to reflect.
That is not hypocrisy.
Define consciousness; give 7 examples.
Why should I define it when there are already textbook definitions in psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, medicine, and AI research?
This is at the root of the problem. I don't know what Dawkins was referring to. The onus is/was on him to define it before allowing himself to be quoted this way.
And if I am pushed to define, I will decline. I will simply offer the mainstream definitions in the disciplines I've already mentioned.
We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra
