Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit and then some time on kbin.social.
It’s almost doublethink, people celebrating how the Fediverse is an open protocol for sharing public discussion and then going surprised-Pikachu at the notion that public discussion might be viewed by someone the don’t want to view it.
If you don’t mean for something to be public, don’t post it on a public forum.
And yet this community seems more techno-pessimistic than even /r/technology, which is a challenge.
Indeed. And Boeing is the main contractor for it so you can be sure it won’t suffer any mishaps.
There’s others that are trying, Blue Origin has their New Shepherd rocket that is able to land, but it’s a suborbital tourism vehicle that’s basically just a toy. They’re working on a partly-reusable orbital launcher that’s like a souped up Falcon 9 but it’s still in development. Several other smaller startups are working on smaller Falcon-9-like launchers with expendable second stages, and China is building a straight up carbon-copy of the Falcon 9 and Starship. But SpaceX is the leader in this field and currently the only one who’s actually successful. Everyone is following in their wake at the moment.
Indeed, I’m surprised this dumb clickbait title didn’t literally include Elon Musk’s name like so many other “Elon Musk’s <Company Name> Does <Thing That’s Actually Normal But Sounds Bad>!” headlines.
Yes, Elon Musk has some awful views and does some awful things. Doesn’t mean everything he does is therefore bad. Henry Ford was a colossal antisemite, as another example, and did some really weird and awful things to his employees. Unfortunately some of the same personal characteristics that can lead people to be innovative industrialists can often also lead to them being assholes.
Turns out analogies are not the actual thing they’re analogizing, though. Synthetic data - when properly created and curated - has proven to be very useful and effective in training AI.
DMCA is about copyright (that’s what the “C” is). The name of a show isn’t copyrighted, it’s trademarked. Different type of IP altogether.
So now it’s basically people who aren’t going to use this tool complaining that other people who do want to use this tool will get to use it.
“Takedown notice” has legal meaning, it’s not some random cease-and-desist letter that you can draft for anything you want and that has no legal weight other than that it might be scary.
Not much incentive for them to try to satisfy the complainers, then.
So they fixed the major issues that people were complaining about. Let’s see if people therefore stop complaining.
As I understand it the corrosion is provoked by the chip’s operation, the patch reduces the voltage load which makes the corrosion less likely to happen or to advance less quickly.
They’re chasing profit too, though. “Taking a stand” means they’re advertising, trying to differentiate themselves from their competitors and draw in people who hold anti-AI views.
That will last until that segment of users becomes too small to be worth trying to base their business on.
Seemed pretty fair and fact-based to me. What bias are you seeing?
Yes, that would also be statistical correlations to an AI model. The specific kind of information they’re being trained on doesn’t affect the underlying mechanism of model training.
Accountable for doing statistical analysis?
No, a summary is just a condensed version of some larger work. If the larger work contains bullshit then so can the summary, that doesn’t stop it from being a summary. As you say, a summary accurately portrays the substance of that content. In this case there was content that said Alpha Centauri was 13 km from Earth, so the summary said that too.
This is really not complicated.
Companies burn obscene amounts of money on moonshots all the time, even ones that have no possibility of success.
If you think it has no possibility of success, sit back and relax as AI goes away.
They absolutely cannot reliably summarize the result of searches, like this post is about
The problem is that it did summarize the result of this search, the results of this search included one of those “if the Earth was the size of a grain of sand, Alpha Centauri would be X kilometers away” analogies. It did exactly the thing you’re saying it can’t do.
Any meaningful rate of failures at all makes them massively, catastrophically damaging to humanity as a whole.
Nothing is perfect. Does that make everything a massive catastrophic threat to humanity? How have we managed to survive for this long?
You’re ridiculously overblowing this. It’s a “ha ha, looks like AI made a whoopsie because I didn’t understand that I actually asked it to do” situation. It’s not Skynet coming to convince us to eat cyanide.
And this is all completely ignoring the obscene energy costs associated with making web searches complete and utter dogshit.
Of course it’s ignoring that. It’s not real.
You realize that energy costs money? If each web search cost an “obscene” amount, how is Microsoft managing to pay for it all? Why are they paying for it? Do you think they’ll continue paying for it indefinitely? It’d be a completely self-solving problem.
But at least that crappy bug-riddled code has soul!