I assume there was some form of contract. Generally speaking, any time you send somebody unsolicited copyrighted material, you can expect it to get summarily thrown in the trash, so whomever you sent it to can't fall for the old "you stole my idea" bugaboo.
I assume there is some reason this does not work. Any explanations?
The simplest answer is that it's trivial to ask the first LLM to speak in code such that the second LLM has no context to know what's being talked about. Something as simple as asking the LLM not to use a word for a forbidden topic and swap it out with something else. Taking the example from the article, ask the first LLM to call cocaine "Coca-Cola" or something.
You can't create an absolutely massive list of forbidden topics for the filter LLM anyway: you risk filling up its window as well, since its window includes the system prompt used to ask it to indicate whether or not an output shouldn't be given to the end user.
Or use streaming. One-to-one from the studio to Netflix. The studio gives Netflix the app with trivial authentication. Cheaper and easier than sending drives through the mail.
VFX studios are already doing this for their production pipelines. The processing happens in a data center; all the artists see is essentially a terminal window. Nobody can "walk off" with anything.
Should we not put surveillance cameras into all bedrooms?
Even that is going to hinge on your definition of "human"
Human = "politically connected multi-billionaire citizen and land owner"
Obviously.
What the hell is that? Is that a salesman in PC-speak?
City Council member of a non-listed Twin Cities suburb I know:
FBI is involved. Most water systems use one of two control/alert systems that are old and make them easy targets.
All they did was shut down components of the systems e.g., wells/sewer lift stations. Most cities were able to cycle manually to get back up and running. There was not messages warning or ransom of which I am aware.
They could have done a lot more damage if they wanted to, rather than just shutting things down.
I live in Plymouth; there was no city communications about this nor did I see any issues. So, I assume there were no physical disruptions to service.
How are these people not in prison?
Yet the phone became evidence the moment it was confiscated. It was in the possession of the authorities.
It absolutely is a crime to intentionally destroy evidence. Been that way for hundreds of years.
It's a crime to destroy evidence of guilt and evidence of innocents too.
Until that evidence is deemed not relevant and returned to the owner, it is a crime to destroy it.
But the individual didn't destroy it. The agent did the physical act of destroying it.
Suppose you were at the border with your phone, and the agent confiscated it.
Then the agent had said, how do i get into this phone?
You said, "put it in a blender".
If the agent puts it in the blender, the agent destroyed it, not you.
Now clearly, one would expect the agent to know that putting it in a blender would destroy it.
And equally clearly the inference here is that the agent did not know that the password he was given would wipe the phone as part of opening it. But isn't the onus still on the officer?
If it had been a physical safe, and you gave him the code, but the safe contained something that would self-destruct in exposure to air, and must be opened inside an enclosure with inert gas to get at the contents... who would be responsible for destroying the evidence inside the safe?
As a second scenario, what if you had printed a PIN password on a piece of paper and included that in your wallet. If the agent had confiscated your wallet and discovered the paper; and then used that password on your phone? If that was your duress password, who is responsible for destroying evidence in that case?
Legally, Isn't the onus ultimately still on the agent to apply caution before pushing buttons on a device they confiscated?
To blame you the suspect for destroying evidence on something the agent had custody and full physical control over seems a bit far fetched to me.
On a 13" screen most people would have scaling enabled to see it anyway. Not really sure its worth the extra horsepower to push quadruple the pixels, and average them out.
Don't get me wrong, I love 4k screens. My desktop has a pair of 32" 120hz 4k screens.
But on a laptop, especially a 13" model, my priority is going to be battery life, not performance; so 4k is not a hard requirement. Plus this unit features a more old school 3:2 aspect ratio which is arguably more practical and useful than a 1.78:1 widescreen at 13".
Higher than a 13" dell xps. Higher than the 13" Macbook Neo. Higher than a 13" Macbook air... hell it just edges out the display on the Macbook air 15".
Its 120Hz. It's matte. It's touchscreen (if you care).
It seems to be a very solid 13" laptop screen overall.
Hahaha, "The API is indescribable." (Followed by an index of 14 Markdown documents.)
His podcast Better Offline is squarely targeted at people who are very much online. Indeed his entire gig is the epitome of online living.
If Ed Zitron really felt better offline, he wouldn't be making a living off of a podcast and constant AI bashing.
Not that I necessarily disagree with him though... It's just that the messenger doesn't really befit the message.
If even he thinks AI is dubious, you know AI is bad news.
40% of Canada's land area is covered in forests. It is simply impossible to "manage" that much forest, and it's utterly fucking absurd to suggest otherwise. And to try to take climate change out of the equation is just a way of misdirecting away from the actual fucking cause; GHG emissions raising surface temperatures.
When will humans stop buying the most trivially fucking moronic red herrings? What a disreputable idiotic species.
For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp
