That's a new one on me. Is that some sort of regional slang? Where does the word "hatch" have something to do with lice?
Err... definitely not "regional slang." Literally the dictionary definition of the word "hatch" i.e. "to emerge from an egg."
Norway's minister of digital affairs, said he was worried that new, powerful technology is being introduced where people risk being... audio-recorded without knowing it."
So, welcome to (checks notes) 1967, I guess?
I'm Pro-nuclear power, but I do have to agree that "containment leak" is definitely a very understated way of saying "you can see the pretty blue light from kilometers away."
It wasn't very good at counting the costs to anyone, and was pretty much ignorant of any costs to anyone else.
I don't believe today's models are AGI, but "not understanding cost" is a dangerous assumption to make. If you read the METR analysis of the Hugging Face attack, the agents used were very much aware of their own compute budgets and worked to maximize what the swarm had available to achieve the task.
Yeah, Schumer of all people whining about the surveillance state is absurd. Voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001. Railed against Snowden a decade later. But, sure, Chuck, we totally believe you're on the side of the American People here, rather than simply being smart enough to realize that supporting Flock is a fast track to being voted out of office in the current climate (and a bipartisan one at that).
Qualified Immunity is a red herring. Don't get me wrong, it's a whole cloth creation of the Supreme Court that flies in the face of section 1983 and Congress should have fixed this problem decades ago, but QI is, first of all, limited to civil rather than criminal liability and, secondly, every police force in the country indemnifies its officers in the event of civil litigation that arises out of their actions.
If you want a real fix here, it's holding police accountable. Not throwing up hands and crying that "the big bad police union said that if we arrest officers for murder they'll go on strike, so what can we do?" Not only should their jobs not be protected when they commit obvious wrongdoing, they should be held to a higher standard in terms of criminal liability than Joe Citizen is in general. (Conversely, bona fide good faith error should be treated as just that).
Because they actively encourage police to believe that their matches are 100% accurate.
Tell me you didn't read the fucking article without telling me you didn't read the fucking article.
No, Flock did not indicate a 100% match, the alleged 'detective' queried for "all dodge durangos" in a given area and chose one that was a different color than the vehicle reported in the accident... which had no damage on it. This is, 100%, on the cop and not Flock.
There's no reason why Python (compiled from Rust) would be any slower than Python (compiled from C). Both languages compile to native executable code, and both have good optimizers available.
They hired some uninspired losers to lead their self-driving efforts. They basically were weak, looked into it and figured it's impossible.
There's nothing wrong with knowing your own limitations and acting accordingly. Had Mr. Zuckerberg had that sort of self-knowledge, he might have avoided lighting 80-billion-with-a-b dollars on fire and renaming his social media company after a technology that nobody wanted.
And human drivers are NOT, "on average, really bad".
That is true, but it's a little more complicated than that.
The average driver is pretty good, 99.9% of the time. The other 0.1% of the time, they are tired, or angry, or momentarily distracted, or just looking the other direction from where they need to be looking under those particular circumstances. It's those occasional blips of inattention that cause lead to most accidents occurring.
But I value even a 1 line change that clears a static analysis warning if even in practice it was impossible to trigger the issue in a real system.
Yes, I agree. The problem with thinking "this bug seems harmless, because I can't imagine how anyone could exploit it" is in the "I can't imagine" part; my imagination is limited to what is covered by my mental model of how computers work, but an attackers' ingenuity is not.
In particular, the C/C++ optimizer is a devious beast, and will exploit any opportunity to make the code more efficient, even if that means doing things that are wildly unintuitive to a naive human reader -- and it sees any instance of undefined behavior as an opportunity to exploit.
(C) is the only one of those the AI companies are really concerned about -- they want to stave off model collapse for as long as possible. The problem is that AI generates so much content that the ratio of AI-generated data to human-generated data keeps rising, and sooner or later there simply won't be much human-generated data left to anything to consume. At that point they'll either have to figure out to ingest AI-generated content without causing degradation, or they'll have to accept that AIs have gotten as smart as they will ever get, and it's all downhill from there.
Back in the day, many were so enamored with the how and why of things that their insatiable curiosity often led to pursuing tech-oriented hobbies and careers. Not just "doing IT", but embracing problem-solving, taking on new challenges, constantly deep-diving into new areas of study, etc.
People have instant access to all kinds of knowledge literally in the palm of their hands, spoon-fed to them with little need to face the mental challenge of working to get information, synthesize it, and understand it. It's the cycle of look it up, read it, move on, rinse, repeat. No depth. No retention. No real understanding.
Curiosity is seemingly no longer encouraged or desired. How do we get this back?
We've been doing that for years. AI allow you to fuck up much faster and more efficiently however.
If imprinted foil seal under cap is broken or missing when purchased, do not use.
