shiandow

Except you I suppose.

It's reasonably common if you take any kind of privacy preserving actions or really anything that makes you less identifiable.

I'd say cloudflare is less bad about it than some, but I worry my privacy preserving measures might simply be defeated at this point.

Could you provide a bit more detail? I don't quite see how one would define the event horizon for instance.

Oh I'd hope we can do better. Cures with only theoretical evidence and an inscrutable explanation for why they work sounds terrible.

Why? There's always some model that came out a month ago. It's been three years, what can we conclude?

I'm not sure either. The comments don't look wrong to me.

The headline is that Meta is ignoring a court order, which seems to be the case.

The numerology is weak evidence on its own, but it is decidedly odd in connection with the other examples. If a pattern persists in seemingly irrelevant areas and favours one candidate in a political race then the call for clarification is valid.

Or at least a serious enough issue for a court to order Meta to desist while the legal trial is ongoing.

The emudhra debacle might turn out to be an accidental boon for keeping devices like this running.

To a point anyway.

Pretty sure this is mostly unstyled html. If you don't like how it looks that's on you.

I'm a bit confused. For one I am not sure why this must hold for something as difficult to transfer as energy, and I am not sure why it matters. Not all energy is the same, hence the title.

Not that it isn't an interesting question but what's preventing them now? You can get a certificate for any domain you control. It is just really obvious if you abuse that power. Which shouldn't really change with DNSSEC I think.

It should, though it achieves that goal by a chain of certificates not unlike CAs just tied to DNS. Like I said, it essentially just moves the problem.

Which might still be better, if only because it limits the surface area.

Making DNS secure is not trivial though. In a way that's just moving the problem.

In quantum mechanics? Energy conservation is not as strict as you might think.

It just somehow always balances out in the end.

Well it's against the law, so presumably they were clever enough not to put it in their TOS.

I very much wish they'd just let mathematicians have at it empowered by the model so we could all treat the people who claim they have a lean verified proof with an unintelligible explanation as the crackpots they are.

To a documentary?

If anything that's the part that convinces me it's more than just a documentary, the fact that people apparently don't want to spoil what happens.

You go to a higher level of abstraction and define a distribution over the underlying distribution.

Though such predictions are infamously bad at extrapolating without some strong theories behind the kind of distributions you could expect.

> in the same way much of the slop LLMs write in spoken language is really for the consumption of LLMs.

Is it though? We're not benchmarking how well LLMs 'like' it, and slop is characterised by an unnatural absence of useful information.

It seems mostly designed to mislead humans into believing it was written by someone knowledgeable on the subject.

I mean, I guess we still need people for the AI to explain it to.

Wouldn't surprise me if the editing process involves a lot of files on cheap storage with little to no backup.

It seems like storing the refs in a trie would be a relatively easy change, though backwards compatibility would be annoying.

Alternatively the names of the refs could be sorted.

Bad learners copy, great learners steal.

This is the kind of weird obscure bug that I'd hope LLMs could help with. Apparently a simple model linked to the internet and search engine is not enough to find it.

Reproducing the issue may be the best next action.

I would make several great Igors.

Why would you need to dissect kittens for a gene study?

Maybe AI development is partially so popular because to some people that situation looks the same regardless of who is writing the code.

Meanwhile I'm looking at code that frankly does a bad job of showing why it even exists and nobody involved can tell me why. But it does something vaguely similar to what a prompt said it would I suppose.

Case in point you'd expect any human who could produce a lean proof certificate to be able to write a human readable proof as well.

So far LLMs seem a bit lacking in that regard.

Honestly the mere possibility is undermining my trust in my colleagues.

To some extent this was discussed in the article, and in a way I think their goal is actually the same as it was: become the first human to understand something.

It's just that we lost one of the important ways to demonstrate understanding.