Hi everyone. The other day I watched this very interesting video [1] and decide to take a shot at implementing it on JavaScript. I'm thinking about creating a visualization next, animating each step of the algorithm. Let me know what you think about it
Put a morbidly obese person on a treadmill for a solid hour, and they'll likely spend a fair amount in zone 4-5. Walking is excellent exercise for some, not so great for others.
Completely agree. I am shocked that this isn't apparent to everyone.
I am frustrated at the pure-hype tone this week took on. There are otherwise intelligent people with strong beliefs that OpenAI "has AGI". It's _ludicrous_ and embarrassing. There are people generating entire philosophies predicated on OpenAI just quietly sitting on a profound technological leap.
Even their missteps are explained as actually good. We've seen some regressions on gpt-4o performance. But that's OK, because it isn't supposed to be smarter, because of its very aggressive claims about future features, but they can distract with fearhype, never release or nerf them, and cite unverifiable safety concerns.
Google released some impressive, useful things this week. I really want to believe that oai's striking claims of simultaneous generation-leaping features, reduced cost, and wide scale will come to pass. But if that tech demo was the equivalent of a concept car that will never really see production, I'm looking for a new AI hero.
I am not really getting why people are praising the article, it is mostly autobiographical naval-gazing by the authour. I think it is an uninteresting way to explore the topic where the writer focuses on themselves than the topic.
A silent, hostile civilization that applies the astronomical levels of energy to accelerate enough mass to cause an extinction level event at the target in any reasonable amount of time would very likely cease to be a silent civilization. It imagine it would be difficult to hide an energy expenditure of that magnitude; the target may even be capable of deflecting the incoming relativistic payload with one of their own given enough lead time. Also, if there are sufficient loud, cooperating civilizations paying attention to large bursts of energy in their neighborhood, the asshole rock-chucking civilization may find multiple such relativistic payloads heading for their home relatively soon after firing theirs.
Is that 14% different with solar? I’m just bringing this up, because solar is dead simple compared to engineering studies and infrastructure required to build something like a new nuclear plant. I wonder if the simplicity of solar and storage will start to change how power generation is approached.
An interesting thing about the Wason selection task is that people do a lot better when given a task that requires the exact same reasoning but involves social situations.
For example if the cards have on one side either a picture of a mug of beer or a picture of a can of soda, and the other side have a number representing the age of a person drinking that drink, and the rule they are supposed to be checking is that if someone is drinking beer they have to be at least 21 then 75% of people correctly figure out that they need to check the other side of the cards showing beer and the cards showing an age under 21.
Here's Wikipedia's article on the Wason selection task [1].
There is no such thing as a left or right modifier STATE in ANY application. All applications, including kitty track only CTRL, SHIFT, ALT, ETC modifier states. left and right alt and control are key events and can be bound in any application supporting the kitty keyboard protocol as key events. If some application tracks a left and right modifier state it has to do so manually using key press and release events, the OS does not supply it any such state.
You seem to be thoroughly confused about what is a modifier and what is a key. Left and right ctrl/alt/shift are KEYS not MODIFIERS. You can track whether they are held down or up by tracking their press and release events just like for any other key.
> Yes! We will never give away any of your information.
For starters, they're leaking this information to Google.
After that, they're presumably subject to subpoenas. And they or an acquirer altering the agreement. And there's interpretations of "give away". And the inevitable data breaches.
I see no identification of who runs it, which doesn't seem consistent with their stated philosophy of "transparency and accountability", and might affect users' ability to hold them to their privacy assurances.
Transportation and storage are still issues we have to deal with today, though.
There was definitely a window, maybe fifty years ago, where widespread adoption of nuclear energy would have stopped and reversed climate change. We may have had an increase in Chernobyls, but in this hypothetical reality maybe people would have been OK with that.
The problem today is that renewables are getting too cheap and too good, and the storage problem shrinks every day. Meanwhile, it takes upwards of a decade to license and build a single reactor. Nuclear is just too slow.
I feel like 10 years from now it won't even be a debate or a contest, nuclear will just be the most expensive option by a country mile. The nuclear lobby missed their chance.
> Smedley had announced online that he’d gotten identity theft protection from the company Lifelock Inc. Kivimäki responded by calling Lifelock, saying he was Smedley. In audio of the call submitted at trial, the customer service representative asks Kivimäki a series of security questions, all of which he gets wrong. Nonetheless, by the end of the conversation, he has been allowed to create a new password for the account, enabling him to log in and find, among other things, Smedley’s banking details.
This is a blind spot for me, do existing legal protections generally cover fake/generated content?
To be clear, the context of this thread is extremely important. I don't know how far our existing laws might go to make sure ML generated child porn is illegal and I'd personally feel much more comfortable to know that ML generation isn't some kind of legal loophole.
That’s a charitable description of the states that voted against and an uncharitable description of the ones that voted for. A less loaded description would just observe that the opposed countries were the ones where the indigenous peoples would have the greatest claims and the governments would have the greatest resources to claim.
Is there a technical or product novelty here? Some other curious context I'm missing? It looks just like any other landlord/renter review site with the same challenges of privacy, defamation, discoverability, etc...
> I've heard fructose inhibits the sense of satiation after eating.
You’re pretty much on track until this. The idea that a specific subtype of sugar has slightly different effects on the body might technically be true, but it’s a small drop in the bucket when compared to the huge increase in calorie intake in general. When this idea started circulating, it seemed like a food company misinformation campaign.
I do agree that my referring to DEI today may be too broad, that's a great point.
> Instances where it works well and gets more people hired and engaged are less interesting to a predominantly white society, so maybe aren’t discussed as much outside of non-white communities.
This got me curious, have you sewn any examples of DEI programs helping to get more people hired rather than different people hired? Either can be useful, but that distinction would be a big one as the former means DEI is somehow growing the job market rather than refocusing hiring practices.
Nothing wrong with speculation as far as I'm concerned! Reliable and accurate data is hard to come by, I'd argue that most of what is presented as fact is little more than speculation backed by fuzzy data full of assumptions.
War itself involves a great deal of diplomacy between those fighting, various allies of those fighting, neutral 3rd parties etc.
Treatment of prisoners of war is probably the most obvious example of this. If you’re known to treat people who surrender well then you get more people willing to do so compared to a reputation as a country which will simply slaughter anyone captured. Sure it forces you to devote resources to caring for potentially millions of people, but that’s preferable to fighting millions of desperate people.
Really, it's that low on a regular plane? I thought it was more like 6000ft equivalent or so. 10k is high, it's like a third of the altitude they actually fly at.
Sounds easy, but thinking about it seems to make it out to be a "last mile" problem. Broadband adoption in the US is still, relatively, extremely horrible.
I concur. I'm notca huge user of AI, but it does make a good search tool when my search term is verbose.
For example I was looking for the name of a windows API command. I "knew" the command must exist, but didn't gave a clue what it was called. Asked Cgpt for an example program, and there's the name of the API. (Which I can then Google for docs.)
I also had a complicated-to-ask question about sun movement which it explained to me, along with site links to actual data.
I'm not using it as a Google replacement, but more of a Google supplement when the question is long-winded to write.
Whataboutism is when two entities are doing shitty stuff with roughly commensurate negative impact.
Versus dinging an endeavor that might have net positive impact (AI might REDUCE environmental impact) against forces that 100x larger and have no positive direction, it's actually just: pointing out when journalism uses a relative value to make a tempest in a teapot and distract from the big picture.
We can't just zoom in on 1% stuff that's working for the common good (at least in principle, if not, let's make THAT issue the article) as a scare story, and not talk about how it's a fraction of what is really up.
Why do you think it matters? You are arguing for a particular explanation yourself here.
> you have no evidence for the existence of consciousness in entities other than yourself other than their I/O behavior.
I don’t need that evidence if I assume consciousness exists in the first place. You need it if you believe it arises from some configuration of entities in external reality.
> The whole point of my counter-argument is that the original argument is invalid because it ignores the speed at which a human can execute the rules
Why does it matter?
> I believe that this experience is an illusion
Yes, we will disagree on that. I can’t see why you would treat your mind as an illusion while the perception of reality, decomposition of it into parts, and even the reasoning is supplied by your mind.
> I do not claim that it does not exist, I claim that it is an illusion. Illusions exist, they are just not what they naively appear to be.
Would it be fair to say that time-space is an illusion? It seems that “it is not what it naively appears to be” is a true statement about it, doesn’t it?
> presupposing the objective existence of something for which there is no evidence
The evidence of consciousness is empirically supplied every moment of your existence, though. Empirical observation by everything else is also validated by and requires your consciousness (by definition of “empirical” as “observed”, and requiring an observer).
1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unh6aK8WMwM