Comment Re:Governments don't have the right (Score 1) 124
You should answer this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You should answer this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A balloon is not static, it moves with the atmospheric system it is in. Ergo, it tells you how that system evolves. A drone cannot do this.
A drone can stay put, relative to the ground, telling you how a location's atmosphere evolves. A balloon cannot do this.
These are solving completely different types of problem.
You could, of course, construct a hybrid, as balloons are traditionally single-shot. If a balloon carries the measurement gear and a drone capable of carrying that same gear PLUS a deflated balloon, then you can have something that operates as a balloon until it reaches some pre-set location, whereupon the balloon's gas is released and the drone flies the ensemble to a collection point.
No different than any other corporate spin about the inflexibility or uselessness of their platform. AWS does this quite well. "Undifferentiated heavy lifting" - while ignoring the absurd complexity and beta quality of their own services. Every issue I have with their shit, I experience a new and different bug or incorrectness in their documentation, and it takes years for it to get corrected. There are still bugs in Lambda that I discovered and reported 5+ years ago which haven't been resolved.
At every level. They must be using claude to make their business decisions, too.
It's not only being demonstrated, it's being reveled in. Astounding.
I don't know if this is just the symptom of the AI bubble, cronyism, or "late stage capitalism" (even though the resemblance to capitalism long since ceased). But it's a mess.
20 years ago, these guys would've been tried for criminality by now. Both Anthropic and OpenAI. They're making Enron look like amateurs.
I'm glad I am not the only one who found that film insufferable.
I'm glad the plague of 1990s "we're going to make a retard the hero" movies came to an end. Unfortunately, now we're plagued with them directing the films.
It obviously gives us guarantees in terms of what the source will do and what the compiled code should need.
These do not provide memory safety, so memory bugs would not be solved by these. They will find unexpected behavioural issues, though.
The precondition and postcondition statements are not cunningly-disguised assert statements because they're not asserted at runtime. They're enforced at static check and/or compile time.
The policy hints mean that if the kernel is doing something you're not expecting, you find this when testing the code. Equally, though, it means that users cannot cause the software to venture into realms unknown through many of the usual attack vectors because those will require permissions that aren't there.
They won't want to touch the other side of it either. If what Flock is doing is fine, so is the creeper snapping photos on a public playground and creating a giant database somewhere.
That seems...undesirable.
Wrong, it's a slight of hand. This is not about individual cameras, this is about the network that uses all cameras together to follow you no matter what you do, no matter where you go, people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices. If this was about individual cameras you would have a point, it is not, it is unreasonable to allow a government to exist that creates a panopticon of this scale, citizens shouldn't feel like they are inside a prison and the warden is watching.
Congratulations, you just reimplemented REST with additional steps.
Agency is just it's ability to act upon it's conclusions. While there is a great argument that AI should not be given agency, it had it.
If you're trying to say it had no sentience, I'll agree with that.
In the same sense that a gerbil has agency but not sentience. It too might escape from a cage.
I am thinking about the following concept. Take doxygen comments and extend them as follows.
1. Permit identification of pre-conditions for functions (what has to be true when the function is called)
2. Permit identification of post-conditions for functions (what is intended to be true when the function exits)
3. Permit identification of hints about what kernel operations are being used by that function
But the first thing I thought of when reading this is how "sales" seems to constantly involve managers over teams who think all their employees have to be treated like kids, or at least assume simple-minded "motivators" actually work.
Have any real studies been done on ANY of this? Because whether it's negative reinforcement like this public shaming/pie assault, or it's insanity like ringing bells each time a sale is made and some bozo interrupting the whole place with loud announcements? It all feels primitive and pointless to me.
This "AI" seems to be severely lacking in training, in that no superior/invincible force (e.g. a party simulating law enforcement) showed up and demonstrated the downside to taking certain actions.
Russia has assassinated former Russian citizens outside of Russia before, it would be unsurprising if they did it again.
I suppose they could do that, but I don't know what it would accomplish. Telegram is already written and functional; murdering Durov wouldn't uninstall it anywhere. I suppose it might intimidate the next guy who is considering writing a secure messaging app, but I don't think Russia is playing that kind of decades-long game anymore. Their main goal now is short-term: figure out how survive the Ukraine debacle without getting strung up by their own citizenry.
You do not have mail.