All these people are on a list of designated marks now. There's a whole scam ecosystem bubbling under the Redhat movement, feeding on itself.
I switched to Ubuntu, but I know Redhat pushes their patches upstream like crazy.
Do I need to worry as well?
Canadians will end up paying their own taxes and streaming will become more expensive for all in Canada.
That's fine.
If we don't support our media we're going to lose our national identity.
Dawkins is right. Detractors are just clinging, faith-like, to the idea that our brains are somehow magically more than computation devices
It's not that. LLMs reproduce an output of consciousness, but they way they do so isn't fundamentally any different than a tape recorder or even a book. It's a deterministic process that we can fully reproduce by doing calculations on a piece of paper.
It's not that there's some "magic" in our brains, but there's obviously a very complex process at work that we don't understand. It's also true that the "neural networks" used to run LLMs have only the most superficial similarity to actual brains. Just because LLMs can produce similar reasoning it doesn't mean they're suddenly able to produce other second order effects.
Is it possible that LLMs reproduce this process? We can't authoritatively say no if we don't understand the process. But that's no different from saying a rock way also be conscious.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Dawkins doesn't have any.
oner also elaborated on why the board, including herself, voted to remove Altman as CEO in 2023. "There were a number of things -- the pattern of behavior related to his honesty and candor, his resistance of board oversight, as well as the concerns that two os his inner management team raised to the board about his management practices, his manipulation of board processes,"
That's a long way to say, "We fired him to get his stock."
Nah, there's more than enough smoke to conclude that Altman's style rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Whether you think that's a problem or a virtue is another matter.
Early users testing the service have touted competitive perks, including 3% cash back on eligible purchases
That's about the same as merchant fees, meaning the transactions themselves are probably a loss leader once you factor in all the stuff like fraud and dispute resolution.
I'm guessing Musk sees the real value as the dataset of shopping behaviours. Either that or that cash back rate is going to plummet once the service gets established.
If you're making continuous investments then you need people.
Not really, the tech companies have been doing this for years.
They hire a bunch of folks at high salaries, but not all of those work out, and managers hate laying folks off.
So they make big across-the-board cuts and now everybody from top to bottom is forced to make a bunch of tough decisions about who to cut.
You don't get rid of the worst 10% of your work force, but on average, the 10% you lose is less valuable than the 90% you keep.
And then you go hire some more.
I agree but clicking ahead is not that hard.
It actually is when you don't pay You Tube for premium access or whatever they call it. If you don't pay for that, every attempt to click ahead is likely to pull up a commercial or two before you see any video. In a 3 hour video, I can see how it's just not worth it. Crap, there are a few content providers I actually like and I'm not even willing to watch their 30 minute videos because those are that long just to maximize advertising money as others have said.
After Anthropic requested that GitHub remove copies of its proprietary code, another programmer used other AI tools to rewrite the Claude Code functionality in other programming languages. Writing on GitHub, the programmer said the effort was aimed at keeping the information available without risking a takedown. That new version has itself become popular on the programming platform.
Talk about a money shot. If Anthropic argues that this use doesn't wash away restrictions, then they're also arguing that their software is illegal. Shades of copyleft.
No, they're arguing there's ways to use their software to commit an illegal act, which is true of literally anything.
I can't imagine anyone making the argument that using AI tools to rewrite code in another language removes the copyright.
Not exactly, because the amount of stearates that came off the gloves would be fairly random, so there's no way to apply a general correction. You might not even know what kind of gloves they used in the experiment!
That doesn't mean you throw out the results, but you maybe mark those results and say there was potential factor unaccounted for and the results needs to be replicated.
Meanwhile, red blooded, conservative, Trump-loving, Fox-watching, Carlson-and-loomer-watching businessmen in Texas are quietly installing as much solar and wind energy as they can get their hands on. Because theyve seen the actual numbers and know that solar and wind are the best business proposition and the quickest ROI of all the energy sources.
It's worth noting that New York is run by the Democrats and North Carolina has recently been Democratic Party leaning. This is likely why they are targeted and Texas is ignored. Trump probably knows there is no real future in fossil fuels, but he'll be dead when nobody can deny that in the USA and his idiot sycophantic followers are huge "Drill baby, drill" people, so this plays well to their belief that solar and wind power are evil.
and don't assume mobile devices are somehow safer than desktops anymore
Was
Well, my manager at a Fortune 500 company about 8 years ago assumed/believed that. He was a good manager and had real IT experience. He wasn't a paper pusher who got into IT management. I was floored when he told me he believed accessing stuff via an iPhone was much safer than using a PC. I told him my assumption was the exact opposite. I asked him why he believed that and he said he just assumed various app makers simply had to make their apps more secure because people were moving away from using PCs to doing everything on phones. I still don't agree with him.
The gold-standard tasteful way to handle stuff like this is cast a friend of the original actor. An example is Jon Lovitz replacing Phil Hartman on Newsradio.
I agree they could possibly get away with AI since it's being driven by his cast mates, but I don't think they'd try it.
Why care about the person behind the Banksy signature?
The art is the important part here.
It's an interesting journalistic debate. On the one hand their job is to report, not to help people stay anonymous.
But Banksy is part performance art, and his anonymity is part of that, by revealing his identity you arguably destroy the art work.
I feel like this expose kinda gets forgotten because Banksy was never completely anonymous, the reason he's not really known is that people recognize the anonymity is part of it and they don't want to know who he is.
All this shows is that society does not need to consume that much fuel, we can adapt.
Not in the slightest.
It just shows we have some levers to reduce consumption that we don't normally use.
It doesn't show that we can reasonably use those levers long term, not that those levers are actually sufficient to reduce fuel consumption enough to make up the difference.
Put no trust in cryptic comments.
