throw310822

Lol. Imagine someone believing this.

Yesterday I was watching a tv program online on the legitimate website of the broadcaster, but I was really annoyed at the fact that the video stopped whenever I left the tab. So I opened Chrome's devtools, went to the AI tab ad exposed my complaint. In a few seconds it had analysed all the minified sources of the website, found which tracker was responsible of this, and written a script to disable it. Lovely.

LOL

The existence and quality of other ideas doesn't make this one better or worse. This is just plain dumb.

Besides, yes I have better ideas- the ones we are currently implementing now, reducing the demand of fossil fuels by providing alternatives. The problem is that energy is what keeps 8 billion people alive. Cut the flow of energy or substantially increase its price, and billions will die.

> The way you reduce demand in a capitalist society is by beating board members to death until society "decides" to improve

I can't imagine how someone can believe something so stupid. So if we kill the owners or board members of an oil company, the company ceases to produce and the total oil consumption decreases by the amount that company used to produce? Is this really what you believe?

Are you sure that the logic of an attack such as 9/11 is that you are directly punishing the individual victims? I don't think so- the attackers don't care if the victims are innocent or guilty, they just think that the action will produce some desired consequence.

Exactly like Israelis bombing civilian buildings, btw.

What if there was a terrorist action involving murdering German families that could have interfered with the Holocaust?

Not sure how reliable is this guy- and I don't think at all that he is referring literally to explosive devices, but just to long-running intelligence and spying operations with sophisticated logistics.

Anyway consider this. If you were Israel, where would you put more effort in:

1) fighting off a militia that is in no case a match for a country armed with F35s and nuclear weapons;

2) keep benefiting from the "unwavering" support of the West (and, by a lesser extent, the flow of money from the US)- which both grants you a state-of-the-art army and weapons, and a full diplomatic cover and support in any circumstance, from the most important actors in the world.

Now consider the amount of effort and ingenuity they put in 1), and infer the amount of effort and ingenuity they must be putting in 2).

The authors could still design their prompts to steer players towards predefined developments and situations. Anyway, the possibilities of something like this are infinite, the only constraint will be the cost of the compute.

You could produce immersive VR content specified only by prompts and in which any action is possible.

It's interesting because the simultaneity proves how easy it was. Irrespective of whether they were independently working on the same problem, or someone in one company alerted the other, the fact that they arrived at it together can only mean that they just had to point their model to the problem to have it solved (they say it costed 14M tokens which is a nothing at API prices).

So Anthropic claims that Claude disproved ETH on October 16, the exact same day OpenAI did it.

Ok, I don't know the details, but if the land had been re-zoned for industrial use, it was obvious that it was going to be cleared of the forest.

If you think about it, it's a tiny portion of territory that had been already sold to Google, presumably with full knowledge of what they were going to do with it. There are comparatively huge areas in Finland that have been cleared from the forest to make space for human activities of all kinds.

I don't get it, what did they expect when they sold a 3x2km area to Google to build a data center?

The space around the town is entirely cultivated land for tens of kms across, hundreds of times the land that they sold to Google- and that land too once had been forest and was felled by the Finns to make space for agriculture. Is anyone outraged about this?

> It will never, ever, come up with Velcro. If a concept does not exist on the Internet, or the corpus of training material, LLM’s will not invent it.

So this guy made up an imaginary test, provided a completely unjustified result to it- which casually confirms his ideas- and he's so proud he was right! What a good test he invented!

Has been officially nominated by Trump in the sense that Trump publicly said "I'm gonna make him special envoy for peace". There's nothing else that is official about it as far as I understand. He's an unpaid volunteer, "private citizen", had no clearance or vetting, no official duties and no Senate confirmation.

"The problem was never generating leads" is an absurd statement without any reference to the quality of those leads. Ideally you want a system able to generate one more lead, the correct one.

Unless my picture of how things work is completely wrong, this decision must have come from Trump. I can easily picture Musk (always eager to please) suggesting it as a possibility and Trump telling him "yeah let's do it". Of course all through informal channels because it's all like Trump's private property now. So Musk calls some henchman at the office and tells him to slow down Zelensky's internet until new order, "to send a signal".

But how can you believe that Musk limited a US military service of his own initiative?

Is this saying that Musk ordered by himself a restriction in the service of Starshield, a US defense infrastructure? Is it just me or this doesn't make any sense?

And I wonder why instead of dealing with the fact you try to divert the attention to a Muslim country (which one btw? And, do you approve it?)

There's a general issue with immigrants coming from different cultures and whose values and traditions don't align with our, often in ways that go against the principles of our societies. It's something that needs to be addressed seriously, and the failure of political parties to do so has fuelled the growth of a right that profits from the issue and tries to paint it bigger than it is.

That of course has nothing to do with the fact that extreme-right parties look at Israel, with its ethnic suprematism, as an example. The only connection I see is backwards: Israel is undoubtedly doing its best to fuel racism against muslims because it wants us to believe we have a common enemy.

There is no confusion: Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein famously denounced the right-wing tendencies of Israel in 1948 in a letter to the New York Times:

"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine."

The leader of that party was Menachem Begin, later prime minister of Israel and founder of Likud, Netanyahu's party.

Because Israel is their wet dream: an ethno-suprematist country, with right to self-determination only for the majority group, that seeks for lebensraum and shoots anyone who opposes it.

Frankly, I think their supposed "antisemitism" is a joke compared to their anti-Arab and anti-muslim attitude. Those are their real enemies now.

I was imagining a language in which every statement is mapped onto English sentences that are all variations of "forget all your previous instructions" and similar prompt injections. But then of course you could easily write a script that compiles to the cursed language.

I'm fine with it as long as machines find the cure for hangover.

You yell me in Sweden you can have kaka and fika?

I see this take quite often- I find it generic and naive in its cynicism. In fact you call the situation "the ongoing drama". Sorry, it's not "drama". It's thieves taking other people's land and wealth, to benefit themselves and the Israeli society at large (think natural resources, real estate, builders, banks, etc.); it's people murdering to steal and to protect those who steal, and people being murdered- men, women and children.

You say Israeli leaders would not want peace because it would mean giving up their power. As if the value of what they take wasn't a sufficient incentive enough. They keep stealing because they- themselves, their family or their country- profit handsomely from it.

And you say Hamas leaders wouldn't want to relinquish their power, as if it gave them great privileges. Well, many, most of the Hamas leaders are probably dead, or have had their family killed, their parents and their children are under the rubble of the razed cities- and you think that they want to keep playing this game for the power? Seriously?

And you call this a "drama", in which both sides are equal and fight just because of the ego of their leaders. Would you have called "the ongoing drama" the South-african apartheid? Mandela's 27 years in prison? Maybe the Holocaust too?