tinwhiskers

Ferrock is an interesting new development. Stronger than concrete and absorbs CO2 when curing.

Wait until they discover what stable diffusion can do, running locally.

That's UBS, Universal Basic Services, one possible alternative to UBI, but more likely, we'll end up with a bit of both, I think.

Fractals are infinite

I was just looking at https://haveibeenpwned.com/ and it listed appen as a site that breached my details. I had no idea who they were or why they had my details. I guess this is related?

Appen: In June 2020, the AI training data company Appen suffered a data breach exposing the details of almost 5.9 million users which were subsequently sold online. Included in the breach were names, email addresses and passwords stored as bcrypt hashes. Some records also contained phone numbers, employers and IP addresses. The data was provided to HIBP by dehashed.com.

Ah, you're suggesting using RFC 3514. Good thinking.

Fractal universe theories have been proposed. I don't know many details myself, but just thought it was an example of how you can still have theoretically infinite detail within a finite system.

I said automaton wrong for years. I said auto-maton instead of au-tomoton. I still cringe a bit thinking about it :-/

You may not have discovered TVP yet. You should do so.

Would that give Ukraine a chance to join NATO? They weren't allowed to join until hostilities were over iirc.

what about edited?

No.

automaton — Noun: 1. A machine or robot designed to follow a precise sequence of instructions., 2. A person who acts like a machine or robot, often defined as having a monotonous lifestyle and lacking in emotion., 3. A formal system, such as a finite-state machine or cellular automaton., 4. A toy in the form of a mechanical figure. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/automaton

The question doesn't even make sense. You have to redefine it to "purpose" or some other word to even get started. The only literal interpretation is "what does 'life' mean?", which is just something like "a metabolic system capable of Darwinian evolution".

Not sure why you're being downvoted. The gerrymandering and illegal voting is real. I mean that's all on the Republicans, but it's real.

Oh, right.

OruxMaps is an awesome alternative to Google maps. It does require some configuration to get Google imagery working since they were required to remove it, but there's also a huge variety of other online sources it can use (wmts etc), plus off-line maps, overlays. You can use your own maps from qgis or other gis software, and there's multiple navigation options. Tracks, routes, way points, and so much more.

They have released it on github. The code is only about 500 lines. But releasing the model is arguably more important because that sort of compute is not affordable to any mortals.

Oruxmaps is pretty good too.

Don't be offended at the language - that's just friendly banter for an Aussie. You get used to it.

Yeah, the ingestion part is still to be determined legally, but I think OpenAI will be ok. NYT produces content to be read, and copyright only protects them from people republishing their content. People also ingest their content and can make derivative works without problem. OpenAI are just doing the same, but at a level of ability that could be disruptive to some companies. This isn't even really very harmful to the NYT, since the historical material used doesn't even conflict with their primary purpose of producing new news. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out though.

Your friend was right.

They didn't use this system. There are other needleless systems, primarily jet systems that use high pressure.

The human brain is a fickle thing. Most people experience optical illusions in the same way as each other. There's just certain patterns that tend to trick our brains. The same problems occur with memories. Certain patterns of memories are misremembered in similar ways between different people. Nothing as mysterious as some people think.

When they hallucinate, they don't do it consistently, so one option is running the same query through multiple times (with different "expert" base prompts), or through different LLMs and then rejecting it as "I don't know" if there's too much disagreement between them. The Q* approach is similar, but baked in. This should dramatically reduce hallucinations.

Edit: added bit about different experts

An AI can potentially build a fund through investments given some seed money, then it can hire human contractors to build parts of whatever nefarious thing it wants. No human need know what the project is as they only work on single jobs. Yeah, it's a wee way away before they can do it, but they can potentially affect the real world.

The seed money could come in all sorts of forms. Acting as an AI girlfriend seems pretty lucrative, but it could be as simple as taking surveys for a few cents each time.

Once we get robots with embodied AIs, they can directly affect the world, and that's probably less than 5 years away - around the time AI might be capable of such things too.

AI girlfriends are pretty lucrative. That sort of thing is an option too.

I'm not sure this is going to help your mental state, but the word is "worst". A is worse than B, but C is the worst of all.

Yeah, I'm surprised Google or another big player hasn't released something yet, or that the people like the IETF haven't had any RFCs or produced any practical standards. Now's the time to get market dominance. Perhaps nobody will react until the shit hits the fan.

I mean, pgp is great, but in this day and age we need a simple standard people can use to sign media without a hassle and we may also need chain of custody in light of social media (edits and whatnot). Developers will likely need or want to build it into their software, so we need a standard. I don't think the pgp approach really worked for most people.

Only publishing it is a copyright issue. You can also obtain copyrighted material with a web browser. The onus is on the person who publishes any material they put together, regardless of source. OpenAI is not responsible for publishing just because their tool was used to obtain the material.

Using copyrighted material is not the same thing as copyright infringement. You need to (re)publish it for it to become an infringement, and OpenAI is not publishing the material made with their tool; the users of it are. There may be some grey areas for the law to clarify, but as yet, they have not clearly infringed anything, any more than a human reading copyrighted material and making a derivative work.