From what I see, Iran is completely offline at this point, right?

And maybe that's exactly what the creators of that malware want you to think.

Serious question, why haven't they architected something better than GPUs for running inference? Surely something specifically designed for the task that could do it faster using less power? Something like Groq ASIC (that's just one I've heard of). Why aren't these the future and eclipsing the stop-gap that is GPUs because they already existed and were the best fit at the time?

AI made the code fully type-safe, implemented buffer overflow checks, verifying all parameters in and out, and the perfectly-running result can't fit into the memory of an Apple II or onto a floppy disc...
(I just made that up, but I'm sure the code is much larger after adding all the security and boundary checks)

I was actually in college in the 1990s, but yes, a middle schooler today with python on a raspberry pi and a pretty simple GPS module could do this.

I didn't say it wasn't abhorrent or alarming. I'm presenting the scenario that this task of "defend this three dimensional coordinate box" doesn't require AI.

Yes, it did. The beacon signals weren't that good back then, neither were the sensors. I had the same problem in the fake robot battles I was involved in.

The answer turned out to be a solution not from Defense industries, but from Genie Garage Door Openers.

The robot doesn't care. The robot's job isn't foreign policy. The robot's job is "here's a box defined by this coordinate cloud, defend it"

Like I said, I programmed it for a fighting robot back in the 1990s. It ain't that complex, and with today's drone factory ships, the Navy can now output this level of AI in killbots at a rate of 10,000 a day.

Everyone agrees, they want the biannual time change to go away.

On the other hand, there is almost an even split on which way to go about it. About 50% want it to always be DST, the rest want the opposite. So you're going to permanently tick off half the population depending on which way you go with it.

I should have mentioned, the N64 DOES have perspective correction at the hardware level, so you can say the N64 was a 3D-first architecture.

I think that is a bit of an overstatement, and probably part of their marketing ploy. From a hardware perspective, the PS1 did have a coprocessor that could do matrix calculations, which were useful for the 3D projections and transformations (scaling and rotating) 3D coordinates. IE converting vertices in an object to rotate / scale it in world space, then project it to camera space, etc.

That is helpful, but really, processing the vertices is not the majority of the work required in 3D rendering. It's the rasterization of textures. That is mapping a texture to a polygon with arbitrary texture coordinates. The PS1 had no hardware for that whatsoever, and it was done by their software library.

However, because the CPU has to do it, and there wasn't even hardware-level floating point math (relegating them to fixed point math), they had to cut corners. There is no perspective correction on the texture rasterization. That is why the textures warp and do really weird things as you move, especially for polys close to the camera that you are looking down (IE the perspective changes a lot along the length of the poly as it goes further from the camera).

If you want to claim that the PS1 was "3D first" in architecture, then that would be in flat-shaded polygon rendering only, which the GPU could do, which isn't at all what games ended up doing - they're all texture mapped.

Maybe saying the PS1 was 2.5D first is more accurate. :)

I would stop criticizing Slashdot until 2032 for a mere $50k.

This is the only way any sanity at all can exist. Otherwise you have AI crank out an endless stream of content for the sole purpose of getting first copyright.

I really don't know how this entire thing is going to be dealt with in the future.

The other day, I was thinking about AI, as it pertains to the possibility of having entertainment (either video, music, or a full-blown interactive game) produced real-time for the consumer, on demand, based on their feedback. This reminded me of the book Ender's Game. In it, all the kids have tablets (iPads basically), and one of the things they can do is play games that are created real-time by AI catered to the player.

Super prescient on Orson Scott Card's part there. My point is what gets copyrighted and / or monetized?

The output of the AI? The weights and models that is the AI itself? The processing power required for the AI to create the content?

Right now, the third item (processing) is really being controlled by the industry, and to a very large extent the second item as well (the model itself), but I think that is going to change as purpose-built hardware becomes more commonplace, and we can run the open / public domain AI models right on our devices.

There is a fundamental flaw with these kinds of sites. Early on, they're great. People ask questions, the questions get attention, they get answered, there is a healthy active discussion about the topic.

Then... all the common questions get asked, and so anyone asking a question that already has an answer gets their question shot down. Because, you know, you're expected to thoroughly research the site concerning your question before you're allowed to ask it. Once a person gets shot down asking questions a few times, well, they don't tend to bother any more.

Worse, this policing tends to err on flagging things as a dupe, so things are mistakenly considered to be the same question. Then, the valid answers for a question can change over time, because technology / versions of things have evolved, however, since the question isn't asked fresh, it doesn't get the attention and focus of experts to create new answers.

So over time it goes from "ask questions" to a essentially a static Wiki, but in a suboptimal question / answer form, without any good categorization of things based on versions and so on, and no good way to focus people to questions that need to be "re-answered". A question about MySQL from 10 years ago has answers, but now those answers are out of date. Sure, they have a rating system to upvote / downvote answers, but since it's just a mass-democracy type thing, answers can have a thousand up-votes (from all the attention it got early on), become out-of-date, and never get enough attention to down-vote answers that are antiquated. I have come across questions that have MANY answers, and the top 4-5 answers are no longer applicable, and find one with just a few upvotes is now the correct answer.