ignirtoq

“Users accustomed to receiving confident answers to virtually any question would likely abandon such systems rapidly,” the researcher wrote.

While there are “established methods for quantifying uncertainty,” AI models could end up requiring “significantly more computation than today’s approach,” he argued, “as they must evaluate multiple possible responses and estimate confidence levels.”

“For a system processing millions of queries daily, this translates to dramatically higher operational costs,” Xing wrote.

1. They already require substantially more computation than search engines.
2. They already cost substantially more than search engines.
3. Their hallucinations make them unusable for any application beyond novelty.

If removing hallucinations means Joe Shmoe isn’t interested in asking it questions a search engine could already answer, but it brings even 1% of the capability promised by all the hype, they would finally actually have a product. The good long-term business move is absolutely to remove hallucinations and add uncertainty. Let’s see if any of then actually do it.

As far as I’ve ever been paying attention, conservatives only argue in bad faith. It’s always been about elevating their own speech and suppressing speech that counters theirs. They just couch it in terms that sound vaguely reasonable or logical in the moment if you don’t know their history and don’t think about it more deeply than very surface-level.

Before, platforms were suppressing their speech, so they were promoters of free speech. Now platforms are not suppressing speech counter to them, so it’s all about content moderation to protect the children, or whatever. But their policies always belie their true motive: they never implement what research shows supports their claimed position of the moment. They always create policies that hurt their out-groups and may sometimes help their in-groups (helping people is optional).

Arguably this isn’t even bioluminescence. The researchers created nanoparticles of the chemical used in glow in the dark toys (strontium aluminate) and injected it into the plants. It only glows for a few hours after no longer being exposed to sunlight, and the material leaves the plants after 25 days and has to be reinjected.

I don’t see how this isn’t a dead end research path.

Can we be so sure such a stock market dip is due to the ongoing daytime TV drama that is AI?

There’s also the undercurrent of the Trump administration steamrolling over decades- or century-old precedents daily, putting our country, and thus the economy, in new territory. Basic assumptions about the foundations of our economy are crumbling, and the only thing keeping it from collapsing outright is inertia. But inertia will only last so long. This is affecting every aspect of the real economy, goods and services that are moving around right now, as opposed to the speculative facets like the AI bubble.

I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop and for Wall Street to realize Trump has really screwed over vast swaths of supply chains all across the economy.

They had the goodwill of the community when they decided to develop an open source browser engine to keep the likes of Microsoft from taking over the Internet and dictating the rules

That’s some revisionist history if I’ve ever read any. From what I can find, the first version of Chrome was released in 2008. In the 4 years from 2004 to 2008, Internet Explorer market share dropped from 90% to 70%, with Firefox making up most of that difference at 20% market share and still rising. Microsoft dominance was already solidly in decline to an open source competitor.

Yes, Firefox was far from perfect, hence why Chrome adoption shot up and quickly over took Firefox and then Microsoft products, but to say stopping Microsoft’s stranglehold of the Internet was the reason Chrome was created is a complete fabrication. Google wanted to harvest your data from day one of the Chrome release. That’s always been the primary goal.

Good discussion of the rationalization of a fascist play. Only one criticism:

But this investigation will become part of the pattern and practice of this administration filled with aspiring fascists.

They’re not aspiring. They’ve sent in the military to take over a city from civilian control under a completely fabricated pretext with an underlying entirely political true purpose. That’s not aspiring fascism, that is fascism.

Yet some disturbed YouTubers say it gives their content a subtle and unwelcome AI-generated feeling.

I wonder if this is an attempt at smoothing out the differences between authentic video and AI-generated video from the other side. Secretly pass authentic videos through an AI filter not to improve them in any way, but to give them AI-generated characteristics. Then when purely AI-generated videos start to show up side-by-side on the platform, it becomes harder to differentiate from human-created content.

My understanding of why digital computers rose to dominance was not any superiority in capability but basically just error tolerance. When the intended values can only be “on” or “off,” your circuit can be really poor due to age, wear, or other factors, but if it’s within 40% of the expected “on” or “off” state, it will function basically the same as perfect. Analog computers don’t have anywhere near tolerances like that, which makes them more fragile, expensive, and harder to scale production.

I’m really curious if the researchers address any of those considerations.

Some argue that because VPNs exist, any age assurance system will fail. This leads to the mistaken belief that age-restricted sites are exempt from compliance if users connect through a VPN. As we have argued before, this is not true. Legislation we have reviewed globally, including the UK’s Online Safety Act (2023) and similar meaaures[sic] in Australia or US states, offers no such exemption.

This seems a bit disingenuous. This is conflating legal exemption (i.e. the law explicitly providing an out) with enforceability. Is anyone seriously arguing that because of the existence of VPNs that their use to circumvent the law therefore makes that act of circumvention legal?

The article goes on to explain technical mechanisms by which websites can determine whether someone is likely to be accessing the site from the UK despite using a VPN (all of which become statistical and not certain conclusions, as well as require gathering suspiciously identifying information the user has not consented to supplying), but that really sidesteps the crux of the conversation. Experts in cyber security have been railing against this law and others like it for a while, with solid evidence that they don’t have the effect proponents claim (that is, make the Internet safer for children), and in fact can make the Internet more dangerous for minors. So the question is then: is violating this law civically unethical?

Vibe coding anything more complicated than the most trivial example toy app creates a mountain of security vulnerabilities. Every company that fires human software developers and actually deploys applications entirely written by AI will have their systems hacked immediately. They will either close up shop, hire more software security experts than the number of developers they fired just to keep up with the garbage AI-generated code, or try to hire all of the software developers back.

Did blockchain solve it? Is blockchain actually pragmatically solving that problem better than existing alternatives? Or is the cost of adopting a blockchain payment system as the primary payment system, with all the risks inherent in it, higher than the benefits when compared to alternatives?

misused

Give me an example of a real world problem that was either unsolved before blockchain solved it, or blockchain solves it better than existing alternatives.

I’ll go ahead and save you “decentralized currency/finance between untrustworthy entities” (i.e. cryptocurrency) because it doesn’t actually (and can’t actually) solve that in the real world. Humans are too error-prone, and an immutable ledger presents too high a risk for business-ending mistakes for any business with any alternative options to adopt it for their primary revenue pathway.

Several years ago I created a Slack bot that ran something like Jupyter notebook in a container, and it would execute Python code that you sent to it and respond with the results. It worked in channels you invited it to as well as private messages, and if you edited your message with your code, it would edit its response to always match the latest input. It was a fun exercise to learn the Slack API, as well as create something non-trivial and marginally useful in that Slack environment. I knew the horrible security implications of such a bot, even with the Python environment containerized, and never considered opening it up outside of my own personal use.

Looks like the AI companies have decided that exact architecture is perfectly safe and secure as long as you obfuscate the input pathway by having to go through a chat-bot. Brilliant.

“Generally, what happens to these wastes today is they go to a landfill, get dumped in a waterway, or they’re just spread on land,” said Vaulted Deep CEO Julia Reichelstein. “In all of those cases, they’re decomposing into CO2 and methane. That’s contributing to climate change.”

Waste decomposition is part of the natural carbon cycle. Burning fossil fuels isn’t. We should not be suppressing part of the natural cycle so we can supplant it with our own processes. This is Hollywood accounting applied to carbon emissions, and it’s not going to solve anything.

A balloon full of helium has more mass than a balloon without helium, but less weight

That’s not true. A balloon full of helium has more mass and more weight than a balloon without helium. Weight is dependent only on the mass of the balloon+helium and the mass of the planet (Earth).

The balloon full of helium displaces way more air than the balloon without helium since it is inflated. The volume of displaced air of the inflated balloon has more weight than the combined weight of the balloon and helium within, so it floats due to buoyancy from the atmosphere. Its weight is the same regardless of the medium it’s in, but the net forces experienced by it are not.

He explicitly argues that “Qatanani is not part of ‘the people’ the First Amendment protects” and that non-citizens cannot “claim its protection.”

His reasoning? A convoluted “originalist” argument claiming that because the First Amendment refers to “the people,” it only applies to those who are “part of a national community” with sufficient “allegiance” to the sovereign. Non-citizens, he argues, owe only “temporary allegiance” and therefore get only “temporary protection”—protection that can be withdrawn whenever the government decides they’ve become “dangerous.”

This sounds like the judge fell out of a parallel universe. Is it typical to make up so many new, complex semantic constructs in a single opinion? A “national community” and some notion of membership in it. “Allegiance” to “the sovereign”? Sovereign what? Like the head of state, or a platonic ideal of the USA? And once “allegiance” is defined, there’s now “temporary allegiance” that begets “temporary protection”?

My understanding of legal matters is that judges typically pour over not just the wording and meaning of law, but also the wording and meaning of other judges’ opinions and verdicts, and concepts like these are developed over many cases spanning decades or more. I’m really not usually one for conspiracy theories, but either this judge has the wrong job and should be writing tabletop RPG modules, or this has all been planned out, and he’s been fed a path his verdicts are supposed to slowly trod, and he skipped ahead a few chapters.

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.

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.