Tired of Google Home not working? This new change will push you one step further into the valley of despair, where a capitalist hellscape leads you to constantly say “Yeah, that seems about right” and to feel a small twang of loss before moving on with your day.
“They put a tax on companies that were American companies that they shouldn’t. A very, very severe tax,” Trump said. “And, yeah, I guess they could remove it. They will. But I mean, it doesn’t matter to me.”
“We have all the cards. We have all the cards,”
So, if I’m understanding this correctly, you hold all the cards, but it’s up to Canada to decide whether or not they remove the very, very severe tax, and you have no idea if they will or not? How is it that you hold all the cards? 🤔
It doesn’t if you don’t connect it to the internet. Fortunately most smart TVs still have HDMI inputs so you can use them as dumb TVs with a PC.
deleted by creator
Pretty sure they’d give them a standing ovation and a medal. The American right seems to loathe cyclists.
That’s just a cat thing. Some of them are intent on displaying their poopers whenever possible, especially if it’s right in your face.
I’ll preface this by saying I’m not an expert, and I don’t like to speak authoritatively on things that I’m not an expert in, so it’s possible I’m mistaken. Also I’ve had a drink or two, so that’s not helping, but here we go anyways.
In the article, the author quips on a tweet where they seem to fundamentally misunderstand how LLMs work:
I tabbed over to another tab, and the top post on my Bluesky feed was something along these lines:
ChatGPT is not a search engine. It does not scan the web for information. You cannot use it as a search engine. LLMs only generate statistically likely sentences.
The thing is… ChatGPT was over there, in the other tab, searching the web. And the answer I got was pretty good.
The tweet is correct. The LLM has a snapshot understanding of the internet based on its training data. It’s not what we would generally consider a true index based search.
Training LLMs is a costly and time consuming process, so it’s fundamentally impossible to regenerate an LLM in the same order of magnitude of time it takes to make a simple index.
The author fails to address any of these issues, which suggests to me that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
I suppose I could conceded that an LLM can fulfill a similar role that a search engine traditionally has, but it’d kinda be like saying that a toaster is an oven. They’re both confined boxes which heat food, but good luck if you try to bake 2 pies at once in a toaster.
God, that was a bad read. Not only is this person woefully misinformed, they’re complaining about the state of discourse while directly contributing to the problem.
If you’re going to write about tech, at least take some time to have a pasaable understanding of it, not just “I use the product for shits and giggles occasionally.”
I have a hard time considering something that has an immutable state as sentient, but since there’s no real definition of sentience, that’s a personal decision.
Technical challenges aside, there’s no explicit reason that LLMs can’t do self-reinforcement of their own models.
I think animal brains are also “fairly” deterministic, but their behaviour is also dependent on the presence of various neurotransmitters, so there’s a temporal/contextual element to it, so situationally our emotions can affect our thoughts which LLMs don’t really have either.
I guess it’d be possible to forward feed an “emotional state” as part of the LLM’s context to emulate that sort of animal brain behaviour.
Not them, but static in this context means it doesn’t have the ability to update its own model on the fly. If you want a model to learn something new, it has to be retrained.
By contrast, an animal brain is dynamic because it reinforces neural pathways that get used more.
They’re really hoping this to be the final solution.
Just to be clear, they were fully transparent about it:
“Hello, just to be clear for everyone seeing this, I am a version of Chris Pelkey recreated through AI that uses my picture and my voice profile,” the stilted avatar says. “I was able to be digitally regenerated to share with you today. Here is insight into who I actually was in real life.”
However, I think the following is somewhat misleading:
The video goes back to the AI avatar. “I would like to make my own impact statement,” the avatar says.
I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. It seems that the motivation was genuine compassion from the victim’s family, and a desire to honestly represent victim to the best of their ability. But ultimately, it’s still the victim’s sister’s impact statement, not his.
Here’s what the judge had to say:
“I loved that AI, and thank you for that. As angry as you are, and as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness, and I know Mr. Horcasitas could appreciate it, but so did I,” Lang said immediately before sentencing Horcasitas. “I love the beauty in what Christopher, and I call him Christopher—I always call people by their last names, it’s a formality of the court—but I feel like calling him Christopher as we’ve gotten to know him today. I feel that that was genuine, because obviously the forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today. But it also says something about the family, because you told me how angry you were, and you demanded the maximum sentence. And even though that’s what you wanted, you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.”
I am concerned that it could set a precedent for misuse, though. The whole thing seems like very grey to me. I’d suggest everyone read the whole article before passing judgement.
Just to add, if it’s found that evidence was destroyed, beyond potential seperate charges for the destruction itself, a judge would also typically give an averse inference instruction to the jury. That means the jury should assume that the destroyed evidence would have been damning to whomever destroyed it.
What that tells me is, assuming google acted rationally in the destruction, either they think they have a reasonable chance that they can beat the evidence destruction charges, or that the evidence is so damning that the reality of the situation is considerably worse than whatever adverse inferences might be drawn.
(I am not a lawyer, so please take my interpretation with a large grain of salt.)
Some people are just fine being horny on main, I guess. And hey, what’s wrong with a bit of free advertising? 😏
It definitely takes a bit more guts to do it under an oppressive regime, though.
I mean… maybe? Could an EO be used to just dismiss an existing case? Maybe. It’s kinda make believe land over there right now, so it’s hard to say what is and isn’t in the realm of possibility.
And I don’t know the legal system well enough to say for sure how he could go about it. Presumably some bureaucracy would have to be intervened in to stop the case from proceeding normally. Whether or not he could do that legally seems to be a bit contentious:
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/what-power-does-the-president-have-over-the-federal-bureaucracy/
However, there’s also the question of could he just have some cronies walk in to the place with a bunch of dudes in black suits and do it anyways? I think the DoJ would be pretty pissed if he tried that, but he’s already been flirting with contempt of court and we haven’t seen any judge pull the trigger on that yet, so we’ll see, I guess.
There’s also the fact that nobody’s given him incentive to do it yet. They’ll probably wait and see, as Trump would likely need a sizeable reason to step in, so why pay potentially more on Trump whithout knowing what the damages will even be, right?
I think you’ve got keep in mind that the cogs of the justice system turn slowly.
This is the district level damages decision which will finalize a ruling that was made nearly a year ago. After that, it can be appealed which can be heard by the circuit courts, and then finally the Supreme court, which is ostensibly where Trump has the most sway.
If there’s no play here, it’s because it still hasn’t got far enough through the system for him to want to interfere at this point.
My point is that acting out of self interest doesn’t constitute being “nice”. They’re still willing to meddle in the internal politics of other nations if it benefits themselves, just like the US is.
While I appreciate what China has been doing in the green energy sector, let’s not pretend it’s out of anything other than self preservation. They’re just prescient enough to realise that they need to move away from fossil fuels to not destroy their own future.
Wish I could say the same for other Western democracies. We’re too hellbent on maintaining materialistic consumerism to properly invest in our own future.
I think VPN is the proper way to go about this, but another method is to do port knocking with fkwnop so your SSH port won’t respond until the host receives a magic packet.
Sadly, that doesn’t disqualify him from holding office.