US government gutted manufacturing? Last I checked companies chasing endless profit did that. Then when the government tried to stop them they used their money and power to elect a government that let them outsource US jobs to China. They’ve been rolling in money ever since.

If you miss key information the summary is useless.

If the structure of the code is bad then using that boilerplate will harm your ability to maintain the code FOREVER.

There are use cases for it, but it has to be used by someone who understands the task and knows the outcome they’re looking for. It can’t replace any measure of skill just yet, but it behaves as if it can which is hazardous.

47% is a fail. 81% is an A-… Sure the AI can fail faster than a human can succeed, but I can fail to run a marathon faster than an athlete can succeed.

I guess by the standards we use to judge AI I’m a marathon runner!

Not even that complex anymore, just download brave and “open private window with tor”. Then go to the website and download the data.

Downloading a “tor browser” always sound more “hacker” than it is these days.

The best part about this is that UMG WMG and SMG all simultaneously went “you can’t take an artist’s life work and exploit it, that’s unfair, it’s OUR job to take an artist’s life’s work and exploit it”

That’s just not how medical research works. Modern medicine isn’t built on trying unproven technology on desperate people and using their bodies as a fast track stairway to success. Medical experiments have to ensure human dignity and that doesn’t include “he was desperate enough to say yes” as a rationale.

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information.

Oh yeah, words of happiness right here! So much QOL, I’m glad you enjoy this.

In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information…

Yes, good point. These people are desperate, so we should let a wildly irresponsible company, who during animal testing had identified the thread retraction issue and not fixed it, we should let them experiment on desperate humans because fuck them I guess.

Yeah the guy was able to do something cool for a while, but now he’s quickly getting back to where he was and with bonus bits of metal all over his brain and no way to fix the problem.

I don’t know if that’s a trade he or anyone would have made going in.

They need to stop messing around with this Musk “fail fast” approach, that’s not acceptable in medicine. You can’t speed up your research by endangering the most desperate people in society.

No. I don’t think this is a good solution. Companies will put a price on your life and focus on monetary damage reduction. If you’re about to cause more property damage than your life is worth (to Mercedes) they’ll be incentivized to crash the car and kill you rather than crash into the expensive structure.

Your car should be you property, you should be liable for the damage it causes. The car should prioritise your life over monetary damage. If there is some software problem causing the cars to crash, you need to be able to sue Mercedes through a class action lawsuit to recover your losses.

First Incidents per hour is not arbitrary. These numbers compare very well to daily activities such as walking, driving, bathing, eating, swimming so that non specialists have a good idea of how much risk an activity carries by comparing it to an activity they’re familiar with.

Secondly ISO 26262 produces ASILs as its output which are qualitative, but still based on probably assessments in terms of chance of incidence per hour. The reason for qualitative instead of quantitative assessments of the more general SILs (based on IEC61508, the parent of ISO 26262) is that qualitative is cheaper than quantitative and the automotive industry is full of corner cutting.

Third, aircraft use QUANTITATIVE risk assessments based on ARP476, so risk can be directly measured and mathematicaly compared to any other activity. When people say “flying is safer than driving” it’s not arbitrary, it’s based on real math. The same math the FAA is using to find safety issues in the Boeing production line.

Fourth

I’m certainly not saying that safety isn’t important or that we can’t assess it.

Is this you?

safety isn’t a thing we can measure.

One accident per million hours is a direct measurement of safety, not “completely arbitrary”. The idea that the threshold in aviation regulations are “arbitrary” because it’s not based on a physical law or constant is like saying the temperature we use as “too hot for prolonged contact” is arbitrary. If you exceed it you’re likely to get burned, and if you exceed the safety thresholds in aviation regulations you’ll be less safe in an airplane than other types of transportation that we as a society find acceptable.

In engineering safety is not “just a feeling”.

Your arguments are so absurd I’m certain you’re just trolling for a reaction with brain dead comments like this.

“safety isn’t a thing we can measure” says a guy who knows nothing about measuring risk and assumes it means no one in the world does either.

Yeah, you’re guilty. A HEAVIER vehicle pollutes the city more, a LARGE vehicle creates a bigger hazard for smaller vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians than someone in a smaller car, and a WIDE vehicle creates a hazard when you park in an already narrow road.

Like, I get that you’re trolling, but if you seriously don’t understand why large vehicles harm the inhabitants of cities, especially old, dense cities, then I can’t help you.

I understand your point, but disagree.

We tend to think of these models as agents or persons with a right to information. They “learn like we do” after all. I think the right way to see them is emulating machines.

A company buys an empty emulating machine and then puts in the type of information is would like to emulate or copy. Copyright prevents companies from doing this in the classic sense of direct emulation already.

LLM companies are trying to push the view that their emulating machines are different enough from previous methods of copying that they should be immune to copyright. They tend to also claim that their emulating machines are in some way learning rather than emulating, but this is tenuous at best and has not yet been proven in a meaningful sense.

I think you’ll see that if you only feed an LLM art or text from only one artist you will find that most of the output of the LLM is clearly copyright infringement if you tried to use it commercially. I personally don’t buy the argument that just because you’re mixing several artists or writers that it’s suddenly not infringement.

As far as science and progress, I don’t think that’s hampered by the view that these companies are clearly infringing on copyright. Copyright already has several relevant exemptions for educational and private use.

As far as “it’s on the internet, it’s fair game”. I don’t agree. In Western countries your works are still protected by copyright. Most of us do give away those rights when we post on most platforms, but only to one entity, not anyone/ any company who can read or has internet access.

I personally think IP laws as they are hold us back significantly. Using copyright against LLMs is one of the first modern cases where I think it will protect society rather than hold us back. We can’t just give up all our works and all our ideas to a handful of companies to copy for profit just because they can read and view them and feed them en masse into their expensive emulating machines.

We need to keep the right to profit from our personal expression. LLMs and other AI as they currently exist are a direct threat to our right to benefit from our personal expression.