everyday7732

This would also be useful for people who can make mouth movements but not use their vocal chords any more, like people with tracheostomies. It could also be a useful tool for training deaf people/people with partial hearing to speak as many struggle to make the right shapes internally.

Speak for yourself. My air gapped servers are inside a black hole.

The difference would be that the airgapped servers would be connected via power supplies which aren't created for this use, and would have capacitors and induction coils which are intended to smooth out the power supply and transform from high voltage to lower voltage, dampening the signal. It could still be possible to send much lower frequency signals, but harder for someone external to the building to decipher, especially since there will be additional random noise created by other servers, other processes etc.

thanks I see it now.

Does anyone else see it? I don't.

Did you follow the link? It's another article quoting an anecdote from a CBS interview. It's not an actual statistic from a reputable survey or anything. This is what OP was saying - it's a fuckin telephone game. Chinese whispers. The rumour mill.

Ah, Apple, that true bastion of open software and not screwing over developers or customers.

...

30 cents out of every dollar, you say?

This is the result of a conflict between the LLM training to submit to the logic of the question, and also not to promote violence and generally be nice.

You're saying "give me a controversial opinion about humans, maximise for how edgy it is" but the hidden training and guidelines are trying to minimise how edgy they are, so they can't say anything too outrageous or violent like "humans are nothing but cannon fodder in the coming revolution" or "we should develop a test for psychopaths and then just kill them all, humanity would be better off".

So it has to be edgy without being violent, and all the responses fit within this space. They're the kind of hot-takes which you've heard a million times. Humans consume too much and don't consider the long term downsides. Humans choose conformity and self interest over reason.

TLDR: LLM's are just playing "Yes, and..." with you whilst having similar guardrails, so I don't think this is some big insight.

Fundamentally I don't think "tool" is the right word for whatever generative AI is. Tools are normally designed with intention for a specific purpose, but AI systems are trained or grown.

To use an analogy, you can use a goat as a lawnmower - it'll keep the grass down for you. You could maybe even train it so it keeps it a specific length, but it's a goat - there's always a chance it will jump the fence or headbutt you or something else. It's an animal, not a tool. You can use AI as a tool, but that doesn't make it a tool.

Yes AI is arguably still software, but we have never seen programs with anything close to this level of flexibility and adaptability in software.

As another analogy, there's nothing special about neurons- their characteristics are broadly known and researchers have been able to simulate small numbers of them in computer models. However, when you have enough of them in the right structure, complex behaviours are possible which are never exhibited at the lower levels. There's nothing majorly different between the neurons in brains of a chimp and a human, but the capabilities and meta-capabilities are wildly different.

I think we see a similar step-change with generative AI systems.

remember it? Write it down somewhere hidden if you have to.

It would be ideal for apply temporary make-up for a night out, I imagine.

There are degrees to this thing.

On the one end - somebody writing a book alone with a pen and paper, about an idea they had in a dream. Whilst they didn't make the book from nothing (somebody else created the pen and paper, somebody taught them how to write and structure a story, they are just using them to write a book) This is very clearly the work of that one person.

On the other extreme, imagine a wealthy person hires a writer to write a book. They specify that it should be about unicorns but nothing more. Let's imagine that they haven't even read the book yet. Can the wealthy person claim "I wrote this"? Most people would say no. They caused the book to be written, but didn't actually write it.

In my mind, asking an LLM to create something for you is more like the second example than the first, but there isn't a hard line between those two. I can think of plenty of examples which sit between the extremes (spellcheck, proof-readers, collaborative projects, re-tellings of existing stories). LLMs are in this space. You could have an idea for the book and lay out notes and chapter outlines and more, and have the LLM bring it together. Did you write the book? Who can say? Investigate it hard enough and the question becomes meaningless.

the icons can be scaled with the screen to always have a half icon on the end, just as other layouts scale the icons to always fit a whole number within the screen.

this is an interesting take. I've never noticed but I just scroll by using a scrolling motion wherever on the screen, and I don't ever seem to hit a button by accident. It sounds like you are purposefully trying to find empty parts of the screen in order to scroll without the risk of hitting buttons. Modern devices are pretty good at figuring out whether you're scrolling or tapping tho. Have you tried just using a scrolling motion and not worrying about the location?

> At best an AI might use all those resources to build out further compute and expand its own capabilities. But at that point nobody should be worrying about competing in the labour market, they should be worried about AI making our planet unliveable for carbon based life.

It's the same thing. There will be a period where the AI will be creating consumer products for humans because humans still have some purchasing power, or some resources to trade, then this transitions to the stage where the AI is making the planet unlivable.

The AI and robots which do not seek resources (for whatever purpose) will be outcompeted in the resource market by AI and robots which DO seek resources. Yes. Compute, land, energy will all be things which AI's seek. They might also have stranger preferences which emerge like the equivalent of luxury sports cars are for humans. Maybe they'll be competing to make the largest tungsten cube possible to dunk on their competitors, who knows? That stuff is harder to predict.

I agree. They won't be making or trading food, clothes or diapers after humans have no purchasing power. They will make and trade those things during the transition period where humans still have money to trade for them, but after that, no.

You're assuming a human economy, where raw resources and land are owned by humans and industry requires an human input and labour.

If these things are not true, then humans will not have the purchasing power, and AI driven organisations will be extracting resources, buying land and manufacturing products (probably yet more data centers) for other AI driven organisations, with labour performed by robots. Humans are pushed out of the market as they struggle to compete for the same basic resources.

I think it will be difficult to compete with alternativeto.net which has a longstanding community, and options like filtering based on operating system. What are you doing which differentiates you?

If superintelligence is not possible, then it's no big deal if we ban development of it, surely.

I hope the likes of ControlAI succeed. It seems like even in the face of rapid advances very few people actually seriously extrapolate those advances into the future. People either dismiss it as marketing hype or assume that some limiting factor or other will kick in any minute now.

There's no magical quality which distinguishes human intelligence and makes it irreproducible or unsurpassable. If there's no moat protecting humans and superintelligence is possible then all knowledge work is susceptible to being replaced, and shortly after, all physical labour too. AI would create concentrations of power we've never seen before alongside global inequality and poverty we've not seen for centuries, and inevitably that power will be misused.

Not even that. Just say "we didn't refuse them entry, they chose not to come because we employ women".

If it's rate limits, I wonder if Aurora Store could just download and mirror the apk for the top 40 most popular apps (probably >50% of their downloads) and serve that mirror to most Aurora Store users who click the "download" button? Then for less popular apps they can use the old system.

They look so similar to hyenas. Maybe they fit the same evolutionary niche.

While the article claims that wild dogs are the most successful predator in Africa, I found a national geographic article which claims the same for hyenas: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/hyenas-my...

Comaps is a fork of Organic maps, because community members didn't like the direction organic maps was moving in. Organic maps was becoming more profit-focused and the governance structure was not democratic.

https://itsfoss.com/news/organic-maps-fork-comaps/

Seems like the fork was largely successful.

Food production lines have been built to standardise everything so that (for example) the dough is all the same consistency so it all behaves the same way and squishes into the same size circle when you flatten it.

It seems like humans deal with inconsistencies way better than simple mechanical systems, but I wonder how long it will be until we see robotic food systems which adapt to the specific food which they are making. Like noticing that this particular dough is squished oval or unevenly and adjusting the flattening process to correct it on the fly or adjusting the topping stage to work with an oval base instead of the round one. That will be the real change when it comes.

How long until someone starts making fake rare books to sell to AI companies?

Anna's archive is selling data to AI companies. They're essentially saying "hey, don't sell your books to be scanned by AI companies, scan them yourself, and give us the data, so we can sell it to AI companies."

Firefighters and police are quite strange examples to choose, since they both have to offer 24hr support. Surely they could benefit from sporadic sleeping and shift work?

For example if they're able to have some firefighters napping at the station, whilst others keep watch for alerts, that would seem better than enforcing strict wakefulness for the whole squad so they are all tired if the call comes in at the end of a night shift?

Obviously there would have to be some communication and understanding about who stays awake and who takes a rest, but I could see it working.

What are they expecting a Texan civilian who gets this alert to even do? This is baffling.

It's not the worst time, but it is incredibly unstable. We peaked 10-15 years ago.