Honestly, AI technology has gotten good enough that those types of things won't fool it anymore. Captchas take longer for a human than it does for an AI model with vision, and the human is more likely to make a mistake.

The point is, sure, their system may suck right now, but if adversarial patterns became common, they're a model update away from fixing it. Might need better hardware on the device, so at most you'll cost them some money, but it won't get us our privacy back.

There is no such thing as "space", apart from "spacetime.". You can go, "there's a lot of space between our sun and Alpha Centauri" but if you were moving in that direction at close to the speed of light, instead you'd go, "hey, these two stars are super close to each other." Arbitrarily so: you can make them as close as you like, you can put as much energy into changing your frame your reference to make them centimeters or millimeters apart if you want to. Where did all that space go?

You can't really talk about space expansion in the instinctual model we have in our brains as 'space.' That's not "reality" it's a useful model of reality that our brains create to help us accomplish things, but using that to counteract general relativity results *which are testable and have been verified in a variety of ways* is like saying a description of what's going on in CPUs and GPUs don't make sense because it doesn't match up with the video game you're seeing displayed on the monitor. That's an interpretation of states in the computer, in the same way everything you see and experience is an interpretation of reality.

I think we have a pretty good idea what the capabilities of the most advanced models are. And they're not that great.

This is a really stupid bill, but the one thing about it that I kind of like is that it's going to put a stop to the AI companies trying to inflate their value by talking about how scary their frontier models are, and how they're "going rogue." None of these AIs are "super intelligent" or "going rogue." What you have is a (admittedly really cool) technology that can solve a lot of problems but also is non-deterministic, so makes a lot of mistakes. And you're giving it the keys to do stuff. And then it misinterprets the instructions and fucks up and does something with those keys that it wasn't supposed to. Then instead of admitting, "oh, we engaged in really bad computer hygiene here," they figure, "we can market this, and say it 'broke free of the sandbox and went rogue" to imply that their models are so advanced it had purpose and the will to act.

So now the old politicians who don't understand technology are going, "oh, that IS scary. We're going to ban it," backfiring on their scary tactics marketing campaign. So it will result in them stopping this stupid scary tactics marketing campaign.

Here's the actual situation: you know every story you hear about how a model deleted the entire codebase at a company? If you have any level of computer literacy at all, the reaction you have is not, "oh, using AI as a coding agent is dangerous." It's, "why the HELL was the agent running with permissions to do that?" And if you hear about the OpenAI's agent broke free of its sandbox using an exploit that it found on the database you set it loose on, the question is, "why the hell could it even run executables outside a whitelist of stuff for it to build". it's amateur hour over here, giving a thing that is non deterministic and capable of fucking up the ability to do do anything at all outside a very narrow scope. The models aren't going rogue, they're fucking up, like when you ask it to give you the emoji for a seahorse and it goes into an infinite loop of bad emojis.

Ok, but some of us actually want to do something useful instead of just try to win the trophy of making a model run on the cheapest hardware. Unless you're generating at least ~30 tokens / second, it's not useful.

If you want to split the cost evenly, sure. But a team of 3 people working at a software company today typically pays the AI companies about $5,000-$10,000 a month, so I don't think they need to rely on the parts of the world where $400 is twice their income.

I was going to say that I never thought the day would come when anti-intellectualism when come to slashdot, "news for nerds, stuff that matters." And then I noticed your slashdot id is even lower than mine, so you've been here a while.

A stark reminder that things aren't actually getting worse, the idiots have always been among us.

That sounds great. However, anything that causes anatomical brain chages that persist after a month, with a single dose, would be, by me, considered unacceptably risky. I'm not saying that it's by default considered bad, both you and the paper are talking about positive changes, and that's good. I'm saying, "risky," as in, I don't know what negative effects haven't been identified and I'd need a much more complete understanding before I'd be willing to try it.

Most of the positive effects are in reported well-being, but I really want to see more cognitive tests. The tests on cognitive flexibility is a great start, but we really need a barrage of tests here: mathematical ability? Short-term *and* long-term memory? Spatial thinking? Are there *any* cognitive functions that are negatively affected here? It's important to understand this with anything that has this type of long-lasting effect.

I dunno, I felt like the IIe was peak Apple 2.

We're talking about different things. I'm talking about load shifting, you're talking about base load and frequency maintenance. You're not wrong, but that's not what I was talking about.

The point of load shifting is that if I have a task I need to do today that consumes power, I can do it when the sun is shining or when it's not. If the power company lets me do it for free because the sun is shining and there is excess power, that helps them to keep the grid balanced during the day, which is good, and that's what you're talking about.

What I'm talking about is that if you have a task that you were always going to do, and you would have done it at, say, 7pm, when renewables generation is low and load is high, and I incentivize you to do it at 4pm, when demand is high and renewables generation is higher, then you aren't going to do that task at 7pm, which means the total load on the grid at 7pm will be less. If I can shift enough of the load away from 7pm, then I don't have to turn on a coal plant in anticipation of base load need at 7pm. That can bring my cost per mwh down from £500/kwh to £40 per mwh. Load is high at that time, so that can save millions of pounds over the course of an hour.

It's really not nonsensical, actually. Base load can be incredibly expensive. If they can avoid firing up the most expensive plant, they make more money. It's really that simple. Even though it seems "free" to you, what's really going on is that you have become part of the supply side of the equation by using power when it's there, and then _not_ using it when an expensive plant would have to be turned on. This is really a case where everybody wins.

That's not the reason. Time slows down (from the perspective of a far away observer) as objects approach the event horizon. It doesn't matter if the black hole is small or big...it slows down by the same amount, the only question is where. The event horizon has a larger radius when it's big, and it has a smaller radius when it's small.

In both cases, from the perspective of a far away observer NOTHING ever crosses the event horizon, whether the black hole is small or big. It slows down as it approaches that point, and at the event horizon itself, time stops completely, so it will freeze there for eternity. You won't be able to see that, instead you see the light that it emits being redshifted as it has to climb the black hole's gravity well, eventually becoming too red-shifted to be detected, and it's effectively black.

In both cases, from the perspective of the object falling in, time is passing, and it crosses the event horizon without even knowing that it's there. Well, for a very large black hole, it doesn't notice anything, for a very small black hole, tidal effects cause spaghettification before crossing the event horizon, so it's going to notice something and have a bad time. But it won't be the event horizon, it's just the difference in the force of gravity across the length of the object.

So, the reason it slows down consumption is not related to the time dilation. Using your terms, "it's almost" as physicists spend their lives studying these things, and therefore if it seems obvious to the the layman reading a slashdot article, they've already considered it and either accepted, dismissed it, or tested it.

No, it's really inefficient. In order to be useful for power generation, the three square mile circle it illuminates would have to be completely full of solar panels in order to capture all the energy being reflected. And it it's as bright as the moon, that's about one half millionth as bright as the sun. So those solar panels, assuming no cloud cover, will be operating at one millionth the efficiency of daytime.

Meanwhile, battery technology, particularly for terrestrial power storage, keeps getting better and better. This has zero potential to offset CO2. Which is deeply sad for the science fiction geek in us all, but honestly, right now solar generation technology is starting to feel pretty science-fictiony, so maybe that's okay.

That is an accidental attitude. I don't even understand what you're trying to imply here.

The default assumption, by literally everyone, is that if it's in an ad, it's not a statement to be trusted. Ads are *by nature* untrustworthy, they are a biased view meant to get you to be interested in the product. It's up to the person with the wallet to then do actual research, and they are literally the only person to blame if they trust the ad. If the ads were telling you the limitation of the product, then the person to blame would be the marketing team that created the ad, they should be fired for incompentence.

If the government is depending on ads to evaluate the capabilities of the AI, that's where you should focus the outrage. If the ads were in any way saying that Claude isn't capable of doing anything including making you breakfast and turning you into a stud that all women want, then your outrage should be with the terrible marketing team that decided that their competition deserves market share.

Ok. The founding fathers didn't want the President of the United States to have ANY POWERS to make any decisions inside the country. The goal was for the President to merely be the administrative head to enforce laws Congress pass, and its only check on Congress was the veto power. The President also served as a Commander in Chief and had the power to sign treaties with foreign governments, but those powers were meant to be EXTREMELY limited, as they gave only Congress the power to declare war, and Congress was required to ratify any treaties with foreign governments.

If the President has the power to make ANY DECISIONS WHATSOEVER, instead of enforcing decisions those in congress have made, then it's not the role the founding fathers wanted.

They also wanted the executive to be very neutral. Many of them were against the concept of political parties, but that turned out to be inevitable. However, up until the 12th amendment, the vice-president was the runner up, whoever got the second-most votes by the electoral college. So, under that system, Hillary would have been Trump's VP his first term, and Harris would have been Trump's VP his second term. Because they wanted to ensure a check even within the executive, with someone with different views being the one to break ties in the senate.

The other thing about saving is that if you can depend on UBI, and it's enough to live on, then that takes the pressure off of individuals saving for retirement. Right now the amount of money people have to save for retirement in the U.S. is actually a problem, because there's no safe place to put that much money. And so we wind up with things like private equity and various other forms of securitization a specific group of which led to the 2008 crisis.

All of these securities are just ways of storing value, but you can't actually store value—value is work. "Stored value" is an obligation that someone else will have to work to pay back: I use my wealth to pay you money to do the work that I need done.

So public support for people who need it is actually the same thing as living off savings, except that living off savings is individual, and public support is collective. So public support can take advantage of the law of averages, and private savings can't. Which massively increases the amount you have to save as an individual to be sure you'll be okay in retirement.

And this motivates wealth inequality, which makes things worse and worse for the people who are creating the value you as a person with a decent amount of retirement savings need done. We've already had people saying "no more taxes" because they don't want to work to pay for other peoples' retirements. This is the same thing, and at some point it either turns into runaway inflation, which means your savings loses its value, or else it turns into regime change, which means who knows what? Right now, it means that a bunch of elected people are just raking in money through fraud, which isn't likely to end well for the rest of us.

It's weird how people think of socialism as being somehow expensive in comparison.