Watching was a thrill ride from beginning to end. Still issues with Booster landing but they will sort it out. The re-entry tiles did great. The satellites did great. Ship did so well they will try for a catch next time, if there's nothing counter in the flight data.

Hardware rich development proves itself again. The next one is built and being fitted out for a launch just a couple months away. Behind it, the factory has begun several more.

It's hard to believe they started building this on a beach in tents, with a flying water tower.

How can Microsoft install something? Does it have free will, agentic rights, useraccount [sic] on Windows?

Microsoft provides a mechanism for monitor manufacturers to trigger installs. LG, a monitor maker, took advantage to install some adware.

TVs already show ads. They give you enough functionality that you want to hook them up to the internet.

HDMI ethernet already exists, and DDC/CI is an I2C bus. No reason you couldn't upload arbitrary data over those, but you'd need driver support on the computer side.

A monitor will work with default drivers. A mouse will work with default drivers. A keyboard will work with default drivers.

It's as if we have standard protocols for basic functionality of all the devices required to give permission to install drivers for non-essential devices.

Somebody didn't read the summary.

I don't think you know what model collapse is either. I don't mean that pejoratively, the whole concept is a muddled mess from the name on.

"Model collapse" isn't anything unique to AI. Any model will drift if it's repeated trained on its own output. Models are all imperfect fits and that imperfection compounds if they're not anchored to actual data. Put a different way, the data processing inequality says you can't create information through computation. It's not "collapse," it's drift.

Once upon a time I was registering images to each other. One of the techinques is to create an average across all of the images, register each individual to the average, and repeat. If you just do that naively though, the average (i.e. the model) will drift farther and farther from the mean of the original images, or even anything recognizable as being related to the original images.

"Model collapse" isn't a problem you fix. If you want to model human language you train on human language. If you want a self-evolving language model then you train on successive generations and see where you end up. Humans don't "get a form of model collapse" we experience exactly the same thing. We call it "languge evolving", accents, fads, "why are the kids so weird," etc.

People talk about model collapse as if AI generated training data is some kind of poison because it's AI generated. It's not. If you train on human vetted data, whether or not it's AI generated, you'll get something that humans are okay with. If you train on SEO optimization web pages that have never been read or written by any human, particularly if you do it generationally, then you're going to get drift, whether or not the stuff is AI generated, random, or whatever.

Yeah, totally unprecedented....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Hey, our product is classified as a weapon by the US military....

Maybe not, but they do want to use the super advanced powerful a-awesome best AI that can do things like that when it's "without production classifiers" that make it safe.

You still don't understand what model collapse is.

Sure, and we here on Slashdot are criticising the silly article. And I'm criticising your silly repeating of the silly claim that polarization is not a quantum phenomenon because you can "explain" it (in a very narrow energy range if you squint and don't look too close) using classical physics. I probably wouldn't have replied at all if you hadn't told one of your other replies "it's okay if you don't understand quantum mechanics."

The actual paper doesn't use "first quantum material" at all. It says "first class of room-temperature quantum materials that are intrinsically sensitive to the quantum statistical properties defining all forms of light". They actually write it all out twice, which suggests to me that they were aware that shortening it to "quantum material" would sound ridiculous.

In fact, on casual reading it appears to be a fancy polarizing filter that's also sensitive to coherence.

It's pretty straightforward. Instead of simple counting on your fingers you treat your right thumb as a 5, your left fingers as 10s and your left thumb as a 50, which lets you count to ten on one hand or a hundred on both. It's fairly obvious once you understand digital notation, but you could also teach the concept using it, just like an abacus.

If you really wanted to get carried away you could treat your fingers as binary digits and count to 1024.

The systems aren't creative they're just really really fancy search engines that regurgitate what they have ingested.

Are we still saying this? These systems have solved a wide variety of open math problems some of which were borderline famous.

But what are the practical implications of that? Isn't it just as likely that those math problems haven't been solved because there was not any particularly good reason to solve them?

'Dem goal posts are a walking.

Not sure this is really news. Well, except that Texas has stopped buying American.

The radiation pressure that prevents the inflow of mass to a black hole has no effect on another black hole.

Sure, and we are looking for thing that cannot.

We are? We're talking about somebody using the term "quantum material", not looking for evidence supporting quantum physics.

Even so, you should be able to pretty easily notice deviations from Maxwell. It's a pain in the ass with film but pretty well any modern CCD or CMOS sensor should be able to detect shot noise from a double slit, crossed polarizer or just plain old light source experiment at tabletop scale. If not, add an ND filter.

'd be very careful about interpreting QM as "how it works".

Yeah, I didn't say that. It's pretty easy to show that both quantum mechanics and Maxwell are not how it works. Your claim that a polarizer is not a "quantum material" because you can explain it's behaviour with a classical theory (in very limited circumstances) really is assuming "that's how it works" though.