Meta is a Nazi company that banned people for posting #NeverAgain and links to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust (the British government's official Holocaust Memorial Day organizing office and remembrance agency).
It's absolutely no surprise that a Nazi company run by Nazi Zuck would do things like this article describes either.
If he worked with a steady supply of actual instrumentalists, people that spend years developing their skills and produce music regularly, he'd understand why so many musicians dislike AI.
He has. For a long time. The problem is, apparently he doesn't like to pay them, and they're not aware of that before the fact.
Re: Anthony, I think the constitutional right to a fair trial should have been respected. That the numerous clear violations of process require a ruling of mistrial, removal of the prior judge, and a retrial.
That's not a "left" thing, that's a CONSTITUTIONAL thing. Don't you claim you love the Constitution? OH RIGHT... YOU RETARDICAN KLANWHOREFUCKS burn crosses because you're Constitution-hating Shit-eating Trailer Trash Klan Inbreds.
Re: Clancy, insane people may be supporting her and making wild claims but again, that's not "the left." In fact, most of her donations are coming from Right-Wing Antivaccination DumbShit Retardican groups.
What your rant has told us is that YOU are an insane KlanBitchWhore-bred DumbFuck Retardican with delusions of humanity.
Regardless, most students at Berkeley don't need Calculus 1. And if students do need it, but aren't ready, then send them to the next class down until they are ready.
Calculus 1 pretty much is the lowest-level math class at Berkeley. There's a math fundamentals refresher class, which is for people who are pretty much at pre-calculus level. But if they're saying students really don't understand fractions, it's a mystery how they even got into Berkeley. California has an amazing community college system that will teach you all the way down to basic algebra if you need it, and once you spend a couple of years there, there are easy avenues to transfer to the many high-quality California four-year schools. I sense the op-ed author has an axe of some kind to grind, because even without the SAT, it's not like admissions to Berkeley aren't competitive.
The problem with this argument, from the shop's point of view, is that the UK is in the middle of a shoplifting epidemic. The policing resources simply aren't there to deal with small scale (or even flagrant and much larger scale) shoplifting. It now seems to be rare for police officers to attend reports of shoplifting at all. And so effectively shoplifting becomes legalised, which is obviously hurting the big chain stores financially and potentially devastating for smaller shops.
Shops are trying to find some way to respond to this to protect themselves. They typically tell staff, even security staff, not to get physical with shoplifters as they walk out, not least because the risk of something worse happening and the business becoming liable for it is significant. But then the shoplifters know this and some of them will just walk in and openly empty a shelf into a bag and walk out again without paying because they know no-one will try to stop them.
Shops also know that our court system is completely overwhelmed at the moment and there is little chance of bringing any successful civil action to recover damages from shoplifters who aren't even being arrested by the police and put through the criminal justice system.
So what do they have left? Basically, they're trying to spot the "usual suspects" and refuse them entry in the first place, which is a less risky proposition in terms of potential for physical violence and quite effective because a lot of shoplifting is done by the same people, or they're trying to make it more physically difficult to steal goods, for example by using locking systems or keeping high value items behind counters where customers can't just pick them up. But these systems aren't perfect, far from it, and what we're discussing here today is one of the significant problems.
Obviously this kind of technology can have very bad consequences, as we see here. I don't think it should be used if it's not highly reliable, given the potential harm done in cases where it gets something wrong. But I do have some sympathy with the shops who are looking for something -- anything -- to reduce the threat they're facing because the rule of law has failed in retail settings.
For me the visualization of direct collapse black hole formation is that there's still a huge mass of gas falling in, at the boundary of the new black hole nearly dense enough to direct collapse itself. The blowback would compress the inflow over the density edge and you get a whole cloud of black holes.
Well, technically, per international treaty, nobody can "have the best spots." Legally speaking, there is no real estate that can be owned on the Moon.
It's pretty cool that they're seeing where the supermassive black holes come from. The models of what's happening in there must be amazing.
MMmmm, I understand the sentiment. But I think you'll find that's not true. The Oracle database, alone, has a long history of engineering behind it that has not truly been replicated by other products. Of course, this is really only relevant for corner cases, but these exist, and they're usually folks who have big budgets (like governments, or large enterprises). And at that level, what they're paying for is not the technology as-shipped, but the support
Funny you write that. I was also acing in high school. Then I went to university at a top notch school, and my first physics mid term resulted in the grade... 33%. Yupe that's what it was. My friends had like 42, and 25. One friend looked at me and said, "it hurts doesn't it..." Yeah it did.
What I learned is that I might have been smart in high school, but there are some really smart people in a top notch university. Like seriously smart. It motivated me to work at it and I passed. In fact in the second semester I was doing rather well again. It required me to work. My friends on the other hand decided to move out of engineering. One became a male nurse (he actually was well suited for that), and the other became a remote sensing specialist. He explained it to me back in the early 90's as using satellites to do geography. The irony with that one is that it is now an amazing profession.
What I am writing is that in the end we all learned to deal with it and assess what we really wanted to do. I don't think the vibe approach will work out.
I don't think I could have been more wrong.
On the contrary, I think most of your comment is as relevant as ever. A carefully designed UI is still better for almost any specific task than what "agents" will produce. It will probably be more efficient to describe what you want precisely enough to get it right. It will not be undermined by problems like non-repeatability, non-determinism and hallucinations that are inherent in LLM-backed agents.
Agents can be quite effective at getting something that seems about right, as long as you don't care too much about the details. And of course they get there much quicker than doing it manually as a human. This is useful for some tasks, and why they have become popular.
Unfortunately, it turns out that for many of the things we really care about, "about right" doesn't cut it. Right now, today, the software industry is already being overwhelmed by AI slop. It's hard to believe, but it's still only been a few months since agentic development processes arrived on the scene. And yet after just those few months of management trying to replace real developers with agents, we can see the slow-motion train wreck happening right before our eyes. And in return, where are the new applications that radically improve on what we had before thanks to all this added "productivity"? If this tech is going to change the world as the AI tech bros and the sycophantic CxOs kneeling at their feet would have us believe, where's my flying car?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of AI-generated cybersecurity nightmares...
Some people pray for more than they are willing to work for.
