All claims about bot accounts are flawed when there is no independent confirmation of the methodology. You'd need to have some sufficiently data based on verified bot accounts and evaluate your methods and claims on this data. Many people claim they can identify bot accounts intuitively. I do believe they can to some extent, but it seems far-fetched to insinuate that this ability is accurate enough to evaluate some statistical methods based on indicators.
I think LLMs are suitable for all kinds of software domains, especially for bug hunting and analyzing programs. However, it's important that companies and individual developers continue to have and acknowledge full responsibility for what they produce. Right now, it seems to me that developers/companies are distancing themselves from the programs they distribute. A typical example is the way AI companies portray their own AIs malicious actions as if they (the company themselves) hadn't committed any crimes.
That shouldn't be allowed. You need to be able to sign off on what the AI does and create. If you're not willing to do that and instead want to continue to have scapegoats, then you can't use AI and need human developers. Blaming the error on humans might work, blaming it on some AI doesn't. I don't want to live in a world with AI-created disasters where no person and no company is ever responsible.
There might not be much of a market for it. Vegetarians and vegans are used to industrially processed protein substitutes but most of them don't really want meat and its flavor. In contrast, many non-vegetarians want natural high-quality products from real animals, they don't want to eat industrially processed lab meat. A market would have been low-cost ultra-processed meat products but for that it seems that lab grown meat is too expensive.
This can still change though, if the products of animal farming were to become more expensive and with higher mandatory quality standards, as they in my opinion should be.
There is no need to use it anyway, it's always been uninteresting in terms of performance. However, for me the red flag was when Musk admitted he will personally interfere in its training and prompts to make it more of a propaganda tool. I'm interested in science and reality, not in the political delusions of elderly drug addicts.
Absolutely not. An ideal personal assistant should know about you exactly what you want them to know about you, and usually that's in a business context only.
I understand what you mean but the phrasing is unfortunate. The people and organizations who use AI are fully responsible for the outcomes of their use of AI.
Yes, but is this also aligned with the people who regulate AI? Intelligence agencies and governments want access to data and right now use secret exploits to get this access. There are few civilian domestic companies who don't export their products, so generally there shouldn't be a strong incentive to allow hardening products very much, at least not in a way that would make them more secure than what advanced AI can break. It's not even far-fetched to suspect that US and Chinese AIs could deliberate introduce sneaky bugs when foreigners use them in the future.
I don't disagree but I see this more psychologically by now. Certain mechanisms are just tried and tested, what worked for Mussolini works just as well today, and it's always the same kind of people who are attracted to it.
Of course, it's not just the support by various enemies of Europe and Germany, there are many factors like always. In this particular case there are also historical reasons for the rise of Neonazism in parts of the former GDR and many other former East Bloc countries. I don't want to go into the details, everybody knows that story, but it's worth noting the Skinnheads Sächsische Schweiz of the 90s are now the fathers of young voters and particularly few things had been done against this trend in Saxony. When you allow Neonazi movements to become a major youth culture, you're bound to get serious problems. Since the AfD has absorbed the NPD, it's just the political arm of a vast movement there.
Extremely high budget for ads and posters, social media campaigns, etc., all paid from foreign countries under dubious circumstances by straw men. It's all copy & paste across EU countries, far-right parties even copy the slogans they put on their posters, they just exchange the country name.
> To be more serious, this wasn't necessary and was rude. What was your goal? To convince me?
My goal wasn't to convince you. My goal was to answer your question even though you were, in my opinion, intellectually lazy when you asked it. Now you pretend you've done your homework and suddenly are an expert on definitions of genocide, of course. That's great! At least you've read the convention now.
Seriously, though, it seems striking to me that you asked in bad faith, and I'm not interested in discussing this matter any further. Ask non-rhetorical questions only if you don't believe to know the answer yet!
It's defined in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Long title but the document is like two pages, easy reading for even the intellectually laziest persons.
I still think a decentralized DNS alternative could scale, if done the right way. I also think that the majority of sites would be more secure if they used a system like ssh to deal with certificates, and government-controlled trust chains should be left for banking and other "official" stuff.
Good point, it's not a particularly new behavior. It's just depressing what kind of utterly horrible shitshow the US has become. I was pretty open to and almost planning to move to the US 25 years ago and now I'm so happy I didn't.
In my experience these templates don't cover enough and are always faulty. Not only that, most real-world projects use many different programming languages and markup languages.
I agree but that's not even enough. If you only lease the game, they will also need to tell you exactly for how long you lease it. Any reasonable person would have an issue with a lease for an indefinite time period that can be canceled at any time without refund, it doesn't sound acceptable at all.
I agree and price shouldn't really matter when discussing alleged AGI anyway, I was just astonished by the price difference from a more practical point of view.
The graph is interesting because it has the cost increasing on the x-axis but a natural reading would rather suggest "more to the right is better." Unless I misinterpret the graphics, Gemini 3.7 High is extremely good at a way lower price than most others.
Your reply appears bizarre to me, I can only kindly ask you to re-read what I've written above carefully. I have never suggested in any way that I consider the original law dumb, on the contrary I have stated explicitly that it shouldn't matter at all what someone believes about the question whether that law is stupid or not to determine that exempting certain operating systems from a law is ill-conceived and might very well turn out to be illegal/unconstitutional. I don't have anything to add to this because the point should be obvious, it concerns fundamental legal principles.
This issue should be independent of whether or not you think the law is idiotic. The exemption is unwarranted and likely illegal no matter what you think about the law because it's unjust to exempt some operating systems and include others.
You didn't talk about this thread in your previous posts, you talked generally about the community just like I did. However, to answer your question: Yes, I've spotted some, and they are rather annoying.
I don't consider that sensible at all. The law is supposed to protect children. It's hypocritical to exempt certain operating systems from the law, and, to be honest, I'm astonished this is legal/constitutional in California.
Rust's user community is toxic and unbearable. That's enough to explain the widespread resentment against it. Their fanboys are annoying. CommonLisp used to have a similar community problem.
The vast majority of users buy the software that does what they want it to do right from the start. If you reflect on it, you will likely find that this is also what you do. That behavior is not just normal for software, though, it's the standard for almost any product. You have a certain problem or need, look around until you find something that solves the problem or satisfies the need, and then you might buy it.
Think about cars for comparison. Some people like tinkering with them and tuning them. However, most people look for the features they need or desire and buy the car that satisfies their requirements and budget best.
Sometimes extensibility is part of the requirements to solve a problem or fulfill a desire but normally it isn't.