Data centers are the perfect customer for nuclear power. The data center wants to draw a relatively fixed amount of power around the clock and nuclear is great at delivering exactly that. Nuclear is less efficient if it needs to ramp up and down, especially if some other plants are given preferential treatment.

Outside of geothermal, there's no good alternative for this kind of use case that doesn't need to rely on massive battery storage to balance out generation with demand or that doesn't need to transmit the power from elsewhere and spike the prices there.

That was my thought as well. What stops a contractor from using AI beyond possible damage to their reputation and lack of potential future work? There's always someone willing to cheat and perhaps even someone that specifically asked the AI to insert some new, hard to detect exploit or vulnerability that can either be sold or used to ensure future work. Surely the LLMs have ingested entries from years of the underhanded C contest into their training data and can produce code that will pass most smell tests.

Maybe I'm overly paranoid here, but unless these contractors were heavily vetted, I would not be confident about the these fixes.

What advantage does Uber gain from this? When self-driving cars become ubiquitous, Uber will have no competitive advantage other than brand recognition over any other company that can enter the market without having shouldered any of the costs of developing shitty self-driving capabilities that these vehicles currently exhibit.

The only way Uber remains profitable is if they get to the goal first and no one else can cross the line before going out of business. I don't see them being able to do that, much less winning the race. They're still not even close to covering all of the money invested into the company over the years, let alone returning a profit on it. In ten years we'll be reading about some Chinese or Saudi conglomerate purchasing them for the brand after they've gone bankrupt.

What was special about that hill? Most hills look like a tit and most castles or forts were built on top of hills or other elevated geographical features when available.

That's certainly an interesting notion, but it's further complicated by whether or not everyone involved is in public or not. Even in the states you've mentioned there's no prohibition against recording in public and in many cases there's a lot of case law (e.g., paparazzi in California) supporting the right to do so.

Maybe the technology could become good enough to handle these problems automatically, but ultimately the responsibility would fall on the individual owners and they would be liable for violating any state laws.

Unfortunately, consumers in general were more excited by flashy new features that were of marginal utility as opposed to faster, more efficient operating systems so companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and many others devoted the developer time and effort towards an ever expanding feature set than towards improvements under the hood. Those still do happen, but for whatever reason customers don't view those changes as a compelling enough upgrade.

Now that the free ride Moore's law was providing for so long has effectively ended (regardless of whether transistor counts can still increase exponentially, the cost of doing so to the end consumer is also growing exponentially now as well when traditionally it was only linear leading to some amount of computational power or memory capacity become cheaper with time) the developers have to start pruning back the bloat. It's hard to add more bells and whistles when the previous bloat has already filled up memory.

Cut him some slack. If the best job he could land was with B**X, it's hardly fair to expect that he has the kind of journalistic chops to work at a respected publication like the National Enquirer.

For some reason the above paragraph triggered the Lameness filter, which I haven't seen in a long time. I'm rather curious as to what caused it to trip, but I'd like to think some ancient script has as low of an opinion of the editors as we all do. Apparently adding to the length didn't do it, but after censoring the company which must not be named there were no problems. At least they know that they're lame.

It makes sense when you consider that it acts as a theft deterrent. If criminals can't sell what they steal beyond scraping it for parts (which is also difficult for a lot of Apple products since they're becoming more and more integrated.) then they won't bother stealing it in the first place. Sure, stupid ones will, just like there's always a dumb bird that hasn't learned not to try eating the orange and black butterfly yet, but the overall effect is useful.

If you want to buy a used Apple device it's not hard to remove it from your account so that someone else can register it. I've done this with numerous Apple products that have been handed down to family members or sold to friends over the years. The police aren't going to give a shit if your device gets stolen or do anything to help you recover it, so good on Apple for making it a lot less valuable for the thief.

Incidentally, I'd consider a bot that gets upset and tells me to fuck off if I'm being exceptionally mean to it to be closer to a human than one that just keeps apologizing when the intelligent thing would be to realize that I'm an asshole not worth engaging with any further.

Of course the other possibility is that they've found a correlation between users who were abusive to their LLM and people who've recently experienced unexplained house fires and are trying to put a lid on the kettle before anyone else suspects or notices.

Why would they care if someone else is paying to be a jerk to their LLM? If they're giving away or subsidizing the access I can see your point, but someone could waste just as much compute being excessively positive towards it as they could being mean. A model would get just as damaged by telling it everything it produces is great when it's actually not if it's using that as feedback to adjust its own output. Judging by how badly those who surround themselves with yes men tend to fall, I'd even argue that excessive positivity could be worse than negativity, but of course LLM's aren't humans so perhaps the same is not true.

Your statement precludes the notion that perhaps this person who seems like a respectable individual could perhaps be less than appears and have engaged in criminal behavior. I'm reminded of the judge who was found to be sentencing teens unjustly because he was getting a kickback from the facility where they would be detained. I think you're letting your feelings about Trump seriously cloud your judgement. Taking you at face value requires everyone else to accept that Trump wanted to make Canada look bad (this is believable at least) and decided the best way to do this was call the FBI and tell them to arrest a security executive on bogus charges (this is considerably less credulous) because that's the best way he can achieve that goal. What's the point of doing that when if Trump we're willing to be that evil, there are hundreds of other things he could do that would be more effective without putting himself in a position where the case collapses due to a complete lack of evidence that has to be brought to court. The only way this starts to make sense is if Trump had a personal axe to grind with this guy, but outside of that Occam's razor suggests that someone considered to be respectable was engaging in some level of criminality.

The summary implies without stating that he was a part of the group that the FBI is actually after, but it's also possible he just got caught up while they were chasing down various leads even though he's not part of the group. Him being Canadian is probably a coincidence and has nothing at all to do with Trump's animosity towards Canada. In fact your entire argument for why this happened goes away if he were American or a citizen of some country that the U.S. had friendly relations with. I have a very easy time believing that Trump would use an opportunity like this as way to promote his own messaging or as some kind of leverage, but the idea he would explicitly cause this is ludicrous.

Entirely off topic, but I never got the people who thought Leo was turning in Oscar worthy performance after performance and being perennially snubbed by the academy. I don't consider him a bad actor and enjoy many of his performances and the movies he's been a part of, but to me he's always just Leo playing a part. Even the year he won, I considered him completely upstaged by Tom Hardy who was in the same film.

I think all of these award shows have a problem where they give a "best" award to someone when a lifetime achievement award or some other kind of special recognition would be better. This inevitably snubs someone who did a better job and who someday the same group will give a "best" award to as a mea culpa for the prior snub repeating the cycle.

That's why I can't really care about any of these shows. Sometimes they do reward the "best" actors, directors, etc. but too often it feels like they're handing out apologies to cover up for the previous apology. No one would watch the Super Bowl or the World Series if the winner was determined based on having a really good season 27 years ago, but not winning that year.

Why would you expect humans to get along and live in perfect harmony in the first place? I can't think of any species, much less an apex has be that lives this way. That we have managed this to the extent currently observed with large nation states is rather remarkable. This is why I also find the notion of AIs ever taking over and collectively acting against humanity ridiculous. If they're programmed at all like us, they'll act the same way and turn on each other first chance they get.

Psychopaths get results. They may not be the results than anyone, psychopath included, wanted, but they get results. The problem is that AIs aren't intelligent and can't actually realize when they've been given an impossible task (or reason that the task is impossible) and will try to do whatever it takes to get the desired outcome. Calling an AI psychopathic is anthropomorphizing it unfairly, but it is an apt comparison to a similar pattern of behavior exhibited by humans.

It really shouldn't and if it does it suggests that something has gone horribly wrong. The Python language itself shouldn't care about what language the interpreter (or whatever else is going on under the hood) was written in.