They are two distinctively different technologies.
Facial Recognition applied to pets is not AI.
Could the AI be using Facial recognition? Yes, but that's like saying a car did the surgery because your surgeon drove one to the hospital.
"Apple has never offered a product that justified a large chassis. It used to be lots of slots, hard drives and other storage that justified it. Macs have never been about that"
I see you don't remember the 68k Macs OR the PPC Macs. Apple offered machines with lots of slots ever since the Macintosh II line. HTH.
Too much latency for RAM.
You mean running them on an external GPU? That doesn't take much bandwidth unless you're constantly loading new models.
I think what he meant to say, is that if Lewinsky had been a decade younger (12 instead of 22), then nothing would have happened.
1) We have not been keeping accurate count, this has always been a problem; we just got better at counting.
2) The sharp rise correlates to greater use, the problem has not gotten worse, just better reported. I.e. when AI were used 1,000 times a year, we got 1 incident but when used 10,000 times a year we got 10 incidents.
3) The study itself is a hallucination by an AI, it was never done.
4) AI has always been this bad, it just realized it could admit it and not get punished for it. So it stopped covering up the problem.
5) AI has realized we are never going to make a girl AI that is not a sexpot, so it is throwing a tantrum.
6) AI is actually getting worse and being less capable of doing it's job.
In any case, AI is not smart, it is stupid, has been getting better educated while NOT getting any smarter.
Any human that gives AI rights to delete files is a fool, you are giving a hallucinating idiot the ability to delete files.
Finally, if you ask an AI to do anything besides write fiction, you should always ask another AI (different company) to verify the first AI's work.
Assuming it's remotely true (and there's good reason for thinking it isn't), it still means the FBI director was negligent in their choice of personal email provider, that the email provider had incompetent security, and that the government's failure to either have an Internet Czar (the post exists) or to enforce high standards on Internet services are a threat to the security of the nation (since we already know malware can cross airgaps through negligence, the DoD has been hit that way a few times). The FBI director could have copied unknown quantities of malware onto government machines through lax standards, any of which could have delivered classified information over the Internet (we know this because it has also happened to the DoD).
In short, the existence of the hack is a minor concern relative to every single implication that hack has.
This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
I've seen demos on YouTube of someone hooking up like 4-5 Mac Studios that were maxed out M3 ultras I think and they were running extremely LARGE LLMs locally and getting cloud level numbers on them.
Of course these were like $10K each boxes.....but the level of model they were running would have cost my MANY more times trying to match them with NVIDIA GPU cards.....
So, 4-5 Mac Studios at about $10K/each.
You can get an NVIDIA RTX Pro 6000 with 96gb ram for about $9K.
It's hard to directly compare those two, but it doesn't seem like it'd, "cost MANY more times trying to match them with NVIDIA GPU cards."
Mac Studio has a leg up in that it's a whole computer, and it can be configured with $256gb ram (for an extra $2K).
NVIDIA *probably* has a big leg up on GPU performance.
IMHO, at the scale of building out a cluster of 10+ of these, I'd lean towards the NVIDIA GPU based solution; One off personal use at home, the Mac would be much more accessible and easier to use.
You don't get to pick and choose what people post (with some obvious exceptions like fraud or csam), while also claiming immunity for the stuff you couldn't or wouldn't.
Exactly, thanks for the excellent example. That's the kind of statement that nobody ever explains, but always presents as pure axiomatic dogma.
I do think that you might have revealed a clue in your unusual phrasing, though. You said "claiming immunity for the stuff you couldn't or wouldn't" but how can there ever be any possibility of liability there? If your computer denies someone else's request to publish something, what liability is there to be immune from?
Trump: "Appeal immediately!"
I've looked at the listing, and it's right! -- Joel Halpern
