xodjmk

I wouldn't be surprised if there are 0 people at nytimes who understand how A.I. works. There is a difference between understanding how it works, and being able to backtrack through huge chains of statistics math that is involved in producing outputs. I think this is the point that is being misinterpreted and abused. It is more accurate to say we can't reverse engineer the exact calculations that are involved in an A.I. making specific determinations and producing certain results with a reasonable amount of time & effort. That is different from saying people "don't understand A.I."

If you want to set this standard in a very strict way, then this will lead to progress with AI only being done by the largest corporations who can out spend to gain access to data. Maybe this protects some people's feelings (what is the point?) but at the expense of some hugely skewed control over advanced AI in he hands of a small number of people. Let small companies or independent people have access to data to decentralize the future of AI.

If this is true, that does not sound like a successful implementation of an 'AI'. What would be the point of just parroting some existing content? There is not even an economic reason to doing this. The point is to train a model, some sort of neural net or similar structure, that does not store specific information, but can synthesize new unique content according to some prompt. If some crackhead or group of crackheads is trying to profit by creating an algorithm that regurgitates Sarah Silverman content, then yes, hire a bunch of lawyers and sue them. That sounds like a very stupid game. No legit engineer is actually trying to do that. I'm not cheerleading for some big corporate tech company. I am 100% in favor of open source, run my own little Linux+GPU cloudless experiments. I see the problem as reversed. It's corporations, copyright lawyers and other interests trying to gatekeep data and control who has access to what. I don't think it's healthy to have hyper vigilant copyright laws blocking access to data, so in the end, only huge corporations will be able to pay all the fees to make progress with A.I.

According to who, you? That has no legal basis. Training isn't that same thing as duplicating a copyrighted work, or trying to use someone else's creation and pass it off as your own. So what crime is being committed by training?

I think it depends on what you believe. Only the title and first paragraph mention 'pirated'. The actual complaints are simply about using copyrighted material. In some people's minds, like the article mentioned Steven King and Sarah Silverman, they believe that just using their content to train a Machine Learning algorithm is somehow stealing their work. I couldn't give a shit less about their opinions, but it is a belief that many people hold. The types of Machine Learning algorithms that are involved, if they are done properly will never store a single bit or pixel of the original data, this is not how they work. My view is that training is equivalent to perceiving one's surroundings and storing impressions and abstracted memories of the perceptions. So when someone paints a painting, it is not stealing to view the painting and store an impression of it in your mind. If someone scrapes the entire internet for all published data and uses that to train an A.I., I don't consider that stealing or pirating. If they hacked into someone's personal computer, then that would be pirating.

The article just says copyrighted, not pirated. No one needs permission to ingest public domain data. the data is not being replicated.

You might have this choice, but young people won't. IMHO. Assuming that we are talking about earning a living as a programmer.

In what world is programming not challenging? Not in this world. As for AI, this is and will always be a moving target. Currently, the GPT style LLMs can spit out simple functions that will mostly work up to a point. So once you get used to the operational range, it can be handy to have some LLM spit out fragments of code to save time. All this means is that simple things that you are confident you can write and verify can be somewhat automated, and you will shift your efforts to the more difficult tasks that require more care. If you can't think of more difficult tasks, then you lack imagination. The better 'AI' gets, the bigger the portion of the codebase will become automated, and the top-level cutting edge stuff will just accelerate in complexity.

100% agree. It is a virus caused by unprotected sex between a pangolin and a bat, full stop. How can we even blame the animals when Dr. Fauci's greasy little science body is prancing around the Wuhan wet markets getting everything aroused. Not gonna lie, I fingered a pigeon with a mask on when those emails were released, then double dose vaccinated it's cousin with a big ass needle right in it's dirty little pigeon face. All for Team Good. We're the good guys.

Cosplay barbie wannabe communist ego-scouts don't wanna listen to no Aphex Classics...

Asked Yoda. Sense this makes not said he.

A lot of people are just getting tired of Cis-jointed background actors & actresses. They are bored with ordinary "8 fingers + 2 thumbs" type hands, and simple elbow and wrist joints. It's time for us to center non-genetically-conforming articulation.

Hi. I use technology created by tech bros to whine about technology created by tech bros.

Out of curiosity, I took a simple C++ template from my code and used the following prompt with chatGPT3:

Write a non-template C++ function using uint16_t to replace the following function: < copy & paste my template >

It worked, though I would never use the code it generated as is or without verifying.

Will this help with a large codebase?? As an alternative way of thinking, if the codebase really used templates correctly, the codebase should be simpler and less complex. If you study and understand one function generating template, then you should understand how this template will work for all cases. But I realize that's the ideal, and templates can get buckwild.

Bruh, I'm not going to ready this, but lots of text editors will allow you to customize code highlighting colors with all sorts of shades of green. But that's also the color of money which invokes the tyranny of capitalism. So Programming Languages are all red pilled, but that's also the color of communism. So you will be stuck in a recursive loop forever toggling between sitting in your penthouse sucking adrenochrome from infant skulls, and dying from starvation in a mass grave while committing thought crimes.

If you can afford to buy this chip, you wouldn't be worried about the price of tools. But still the situation is much better now than it was in the past. For medium or smaller devices, Ultrascale or Zynq, everything is free, and you don't even need a license. Just install and go. AMD/Xilinx has moved towards a more standard programming environment, Github, open source embedded Linux, etc. Much less of a headache.

These boards are amazing for the price. About 1/3 as expensive as a Zedboard and way more capable. It's confusing, but real. I use both for work & personal projects.

This is the old notion of what an FPGA is, and if you notice, these new devices aren't even called FPGA's anymore! They're called 'adaptive SoC's'. Only a small portion of the device is FPGA fabric. But still, even previous gen FPGA's wouldn't be shipped with defects.

I think the keywords are 'laptop formfactor'. If your goal is specifically to run niche specialized soft-processors and you wanted it all bundled into a laptop style dev environment, then I think this is a great idea. But for an actual functional laptop, no way.

Yes, and quite limited. The MiSTer hardware, and other similar platforms are good for emulating ancient video game processors and running 8-bit style video games. This is a fun thing to do I guess if you like that. Modern high performance FPGA's, meaning AMD/Xilinx since that is the only option, can handle PROTOTYPING modern CPU's, including RISC-V, as soft processors. This is great for R&D, but FPGA's have hardware ARM cores built in, specifically because they are much more efficient and have existing ecosystems. There are other options for hardware RISC-V CPUs, but not really a SoC style FPGA+RISC-V combination. that I am aware of.

CV doesn't decide what it is used for. You could start a company that uses CV to track the health of the global polar bear population.

And please, bring up the 'facial recognition is biased against race/gender' anecdote for the one millionth time. Everyone and their dog has been aware of bias issues for the last 8 years.

If AI Ethicists are some pseudo technical leeches making up fake job titles to pretend like they matter, CV Ethicists must be some lower form of parasite attached to the leech? God speed.

"Soros reminds me of Magneto" => All the proof I need. Please check out my eviscerating vice/substack article: Elon Musk, the visionary entrepreneur and CEO of SpaceX, has expressed interest in the possibility of mining emeralds on Mars in the future. While no concrete plans or actions have been taken yet, Musk's vision stems from the idea of utilizing the resources available on Mars to sustain human colonization efforts. As Mars is known to have mineral deposits, including beryl, which can yield emeralds, Musk envisions the potential for resource extraction as part of long-term plans for self-sufficiency on the red planet. However, it's important to note that any such mining operations on Mars are still purely speculative and would require significant technological advancements and infrastructure development before becoming a reality.

A moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips.

For real. I am pro environment, so I do think there is some legitimate amount of environmental impact studies that should be done. But it is clear there is some emotional/ideological agenda attached to anything associated with Musk, now the SpaceX launch is just the target of the moment. The industries threatened by innovation hire PR who prey on easily emotionally swayed individuals, and the result is a flood of parroted opinions and hit-pieces propagated all over the internet.

SpaceX are succeeding by strategically blowing up prototypes and learning by pushing materials up to and past the point of failure. I think the majority of people watching this are celebrating and appreciate the progression of never been done before reusable rocket technology. Then of course there are losers whining about dust and a broken concrete slab. There is great drama. Which side will prevail?

winners: People working hard to advance space-faring technology & incrementally succeeding.

losers: People whining about broken concrete and dust in some dust pit in Texas

The article completely misunderstand the argument, and leaves out the actual important pieces. The argument is that allowing/incentivising some hypothetical AGI to pursue a certain ideology, like trying to inject someone's idea of 'social justice' into the world would pose the risk of allowing this AGI to lie and manipulate humans as subjects and we would lose control. If the incentive is to 'maximally seek truth', then this might be more likely to align with a future that values human life, in the same way that we value animals and appreciate the raw nature, without trying to intervene and change their instinctual behavior. Like trying to biologically modify lions to be vegan, vs. respecting the brutal reality of predator vs. prey. Whether this hypothetical idea is correct or not is debatable, but the article clearly misses the point.

if you have a hard time understanding basic words, anti + white, you have been critically brainwashed.

I count 12 multiplications?!? I'm not sure what world this would be considered a good algorithm? But for hardware / embedded processor code this is extraordinarily slow and inefficient with huge latency. How would this ever be preferable to DDS / interpolated table approach?

Not sure about the bio stuff, but AI could be used very effectively to modulate a woman's voice so that it sounds deeper and more manly. This would allow a company to raise more venture capital.