I would honestly like to see a cut of just about any TV show or movie that uses stunt doubles where the doubles do both the lines and the action. I would like to see how different a director would shoot a scene if they weren't constrained to choosing angles and lighting to make it look like two different people were the same person.
At least it was better than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Happening in my neighborhood, and today is trash pickup day for my street. Not sure what we're going to do with our trash, but I 100% support the strike. Every job deserves a living wage, no exceptions.
I don't follow Mexican politics closely, but this could be part of an effort to curb obesity. I've heard they introduced taxes on sugary drinks for this, so this might be another avenue.
If people are wanting cheap snacks, and private companies are only making unhealthy ones, you can introduce regulations to micromanage what they can produce, or you can introduce a complex taxation process to disincentivize sugar snacks. Or you can introduce your own product that meets a perceived unmet demand in an underserved market.
The thing is it's been like that forever. Good products made by small- to medium-sized businesses have always attracted buyouts where the new owner basically converts the good reputation of the original into money through cutting corners, laying off critical workers, and other strategies that slowly (or quickly) make the product worse. Eventually the formerly good product gets bad enough there's space in the market for an entrepreneur to introduce a new good product, and the cycle repeats.
I think what's different now is, since this has gone on unabated for 70+ years, economic inequality means the people with good ideas for products can't afford to become entrepreneurs anymore. The market openings are there, but the people that made everything so bad now have all the money. So the cycle is broken not by good products staying good, but by bad products having no replacements.
Oppenheimer was already really long, and I feel like it portrayed the complexity of the moral struggle Oppenheimer faced pretty well, as well as showing him as the very fallible human being he was. You can't make a movie that talks about every aspect of such an historical event as the development and use of the first atomic bombs. There's just too much. It would have to be a documentary, and even then it would be days long. Just because it wasn't the story James Cameron considers the most compelling/important about the development of the atomic bomb doesn't mean it's not a compelling/important story.
The first statement is not even wholly true. While training does take more, executing the model (called "inference") takes much, much more power than non-AI search algorithms, or really any traditional computational algorithm besides bogosort.
Big Tech weren't doing the best they possibly could transitioning to green energy, but they were making substantial progress before LLMs exploded on the scene because the value proposition was there: traditional algorithms were efficient enough that the PR gain from doing the green energy transition offset the cost.
Now Big Tech have for some reason decided that LLMs represent the biggest game of gambling ever. The first to find the breakthrough to AGI will win it all and completely take over all IT markets, so they need to consume as much as they can get away with to maximize the probability that that breakthrough happens by their engineers.
This is the ultimate Texan dog-that-caught-the-car moment. I remember talking about this in school in Texas 25 years ago when Republicans were complaining about immigration. Several students brought up that the farms are all tended by "seasonal workers," which meant immigrant labor, so what was the Republican answer to that? They didn't have one, of course, not a realistic one. It was the same talking points then as now of "American workers" filling the gap, and even then those jobs didn't pay a living wage, so no American would take them. I bet they pay worse now.
They had 25 years to figure this out, but of course they had no intention of figuring it out.
They keep tasking these LLMs with things that traditional programming solved a long time ago. There are already vending machines run by computers. They work just fine without AI.
Honestly the computer controlled vending machines are already over-engineered since many of them play ads when you walk up. The last customer-focused feature added was credit card support, and that just needs a credit card reader and a minimal IoT integration. They really shouldn't even have screens.
Why are they... why are they having autocomplete recommend medical treatment? There are specialized AI algorithms that already exist for that purpose that do it far better (though still not well enough to even assist real doctors, much less replace them).
Man, we're in so deep the cabinet members are independently causing constitutional crises. Is there a website that provides a live-updated counter for the number of ongoing constitutional crises we're in?
The change doesn’t reflect unprecedented temperatures, with Fairbanks having reached 90 degrees twice in 2024, Srinivasan said. It’s purely an administrative change by the weather service.
I think this is a bit disingenuous. Sure, it's not technically "unprecedented" because it has happened before, specifically last year, but the change is because they want to better help people, and better helping people means making this change because hotter temperatures are happening more because of climate change.
Thoman also clarified that the term swap doesn’t have anything to do with climate change.
They may not be directly citing climate change, but it's absolutely the root cause. I wonder if they're just trying to stay under Trump's radar so he doesn't make them roll it back because they said the C phrase. In bad political times doing good sometimes means speaking the party line while doing good works behind their backs.
My point is that this kind of pseudo intelligence has never existed on Earth before, so evolution has had free reign to use language sophistication as a proxy for humanity and intelligence without encountering anything that would put selective pressure against this heuristic.
Human language is old. Way older than the written word. Our brains have evolved specialized regions for language processing, so evolution has clearly had time to operate while language has existed.
And LLMs are not the first sophisticated AI that's been around. We've had AI for decades, and really good AI for a while. But people don't anthropomorphize other kinds of AI nearly as much as LLMs. Sure, they ascribe some human like intelligence to any sophisticated technology, and some people in history have claimed some technology or another is alive/sentient. But with LLMs we're seeing a larger portion of the population believing that that we haven't seen in human behavior before.
It's mixed with other artificial sweeteners (I know of at least the monk fruit in my pantry) to get better weight to sweetness ratios. Most of the most popular artificial sweeteners are far stronger, sometimes hundreds of times stronger, than sugar. So they mix them with erythritol, which is less sweet than sugar, so you can replace 5g of sugar with 5g of the artificial sweetener in recipes and get the right sweetness.
My running theory is that human evolution developed a heuristic in our brains that associates language sophistication with general intelligence, and especially with humanity. The very fact that LLMs are so good at composing sophisticated sentences triggers this heuristic and makes people anthropomorphize them far more than other kinds of AI, so they ascribe more capability to them than evidence justifies.
I actually think this may explain some earlier reporting of some weird behavior of AI researchers as well. I seem to recall reports of Google researchers believing they had created sentient AI (a quick search produced this article). The researcher was fooled by his own AI not because he drank the Koolaid, but because he fell prey to this neural heuristic that's in all of us.
Where's the satire? This is just rephrasing what he has actually done. Is rephrasing factual statements satire now? Or have these satire sites given up and just resorted to real reporting?
The human brain is not an ordered, carefully engineered thinking machine; it's a massive hodge-podge of heuristic systems to solve a lot of different classes of problems, which makes sense when you remember it evolved over millions of years as our very distant ancestors were exposed to radically different environments and challenges.
Likewise, however AGI is built, in order to communicate with humans and solve most of the same problems, it's probably going to take an amalgamation of different algorithms, just like brains.
All of this to say, I agree memorization will probably be an integral part of that system, but it's also going to be a small part of the final system. So I also agree with the article that we're way off from AGI.
And while the court has now dismissed Lliuya’s specific claim – finding the flood risk to Lliuya’s particular property is not yet sufficiently great – it did confirm that private companies can in principle be held liable for their share in causing climate damages.
Do cases that end in dismissal set precedent?
The size of the cut is what they use for the appeal to the public to build their social narrative, but legally/economically speaking it's not really the problem. The problem is that Apple effectively forbids developers from having any other mechanism to transact with customers except through their marketplace where they take the 30% cut, hence the lawsuit being about monopolistic practices, not the amount they're charging.
Valve handles things completely differently. Sure, listing on the Steam store requires giving Valve a 30% cut of the purchase price, but Steam doesn't demand a 30% cut of any and all transactions that happen within or related to the game like Apple does. You also don't have to buy a game from the Steam store to load it and launch it from the Steam client. And Proton works with a lot more games and applications than just those on the Steam store.
The fact that the two companies charge a similar price for a single relatively similar business case oversimplifies a lot of how the two companies operate.