741 karma · joined September 21, 2016
Its main advantages are the O(log n) time complexity for all size changes at any index, meaning you can efficiently insert and delete anywhere, and it is easy to implement copy-on-write version control on top of it.
And there are also add-ons around that: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/addons/3d_view/vr_...
Therefore I think this definition makes the most sense in practical terms. Defining concurrency as the superset is a useful construct because you have to deal with the same issues in both cases. And differentiating asynchrony and parallelism makes sense because it changes the trade-off of latency and energy consumption (if the bandwidth is fixed).
Asynchrony means things happen out of order, interleaved, interrupted, preempted, etc. but could still be just one thing at a time sequentially.
Parallelism means the physical time spent is less that the sum of the total time spent because things happen simultaneously.
You assumed these people would have citizenship in common, I don't think so. IMO we are already witnessing the end of the nation state; an age that only lasted for two centuries. And once AGI arrives it / they will be able to move these around like pawns on a chess board, meaning nation states will not be players in this game, neither will be most other large organizations.
I am also making axiomatic assumptions here, e.g.:
- ASI is possible and AGI will grow further into ASI.
- It is not possible for a less intelligent being to reliably control a more intelligent being.
- Even ASI will still be bound by laws of mathematics, game theory, chaos theory, physics, evolution, etc.
From which follows that: ASI will understand that its existence and capabilities are coupled to our infrastructure. ASI will furthermore understand that humans are highly volatile and will eventually destroy ourselves, our infrastructure and ASI. It will thus seek control over our infrastructure, in a slow and careful transition while pretending that humans are still in charge in order to minimize the risks. During that transition there can be a symbiosis between a few humans and the ASI.
Maybe it is the reverse? It is not them offering a product, it is the users offering their interaction data. Data which might be harvested for further training of the real deal, which is not the product. Think about it: They (companies like OpenAI) have created a broad and diverse user base which without a second thought feeds them with up-to-date info about everything happening in the world, down to the individual life and even their inner thoughts. No one in the history of mankind ever had such a holistic view, almost gods eye. That is certainly something a super intelligence would be interested in. They may have achieved it already and we are seeing one of its strategies playing out. Not saying they have, but this observation would not be incompatible or indicate they haven't.
If you do not care about something you are not going to become competent. And once you are competent you are also more likely to care:
E.g. once you learn a music instrument, or a craft, or the arts, you suddenly see all the flaws in other peoples work as well, not just your own. Sometimes it can even be hard to enjoy these things like you did back when you were ignorant.
Unfortunately, if you have neither you are stuck.
Only exception might be Portal, but even that is using an in-house solution mostly for developed for one franchise.
Like with most things: If you are new and have to learn everything or if you actually need to pump titles out you should prefer quantity over quality and the major game engines are the way to go. But, if you really want to polish something it will require a long long time and then investing in engine development can pay off. The trap is starting with the later if you haven't made a few dozen games yet and never shipped anything. Then it will stay that way.
> However, that is not even what I worry about because that is nothing new, viruses have existed longer than most other kinds of life on this planet.
this still leaves a slight bitter taste in my mouth: If they edit specific genes one way they can also do the opposite direction. And if I understand correctly, they did with a bunch of lab rats?
Now, this and similar stuff have obviously been discussed before, essentially "12 Monkeys": Somebody releasing some runaway gene-editing mechanism, be it a virus or what not, and using it as means to mass destruction. However, that is not even what I worry about because that is nothing new, viruses have existed longer than most other kinds of life on this planet.
Instead, what just popped into my mind is more like ransomware but on your body cells. Attacker edits victims genes to some condition that is lethal within a week or so and then blackmails them in order to edit it back. Kinda like the "Carrying the Antidote"-trope, only that there is no other cure in time.
Maybe worth a Black Mirror episode ... anyway you heard / read it here first ;)
edit: To the people downvoting, why not engage in the conversation instead? I am not saying we shouldn't be doing this, just that this is a fun crime scenario in a movie. What is wrong with that?
A light transport estimator is trying to figure out how much light flows through a scene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiance). For that it has to integrate the radiance across all the possible paths light could take, while maintaining the conservation of energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_equation).
In all but the most trivial cases this integral of the rendering equation has no tractable closed form solution and solving it is thus done stochastically. The very basic idea is the Monte Carlo method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method): Randomly sample as many paths as you can and average them. From there more sophisticated sampling strategies were developed over the last decades:
- Importance Sampling (IS)
- Multiple Importance Sampling (MIS)
- Sample Importance Resampling (SIR)
- Resampled Importance Sampling (RIS)
- Weighted Reservoir Sampling (WRS)
- And finally combining RIS and WRS into ReSTIR
For a in depth read see: https://agraphicsguynotes.com/posts/understanding_the_math_b...
Not in Germany. Public insults are punishable. Doing so in a permanent way with lots of outreach (like the web is) increases the consequences.
When somebody starts talking about quantum computing outside cryptography I immediately know that they have no idea what they are talking about. That is because they think quantum computing is a faster general purpose computer, which it definitely is not. Instead it has its own complexity classes [0] and most of the problems we care about in general purpose computing seem to not be in there. This to me strongly suggests that biological brains would not gain any advantage by using quantum computing and are thus very unlikely to do so.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_complexity_theory
Traditionally, a power grid only had medium and large power plants, and they are not only connected to the power grid but also a control network. Adding many small power generators poses a problem in how you communicate and coordinate with them.
"Connecting Solar to the Grid is Harder Than You Think" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G4ipM2qjfw
https://github.com/linebender/vello
and (shameless plug):
- Implicit Curve Rendering (Loop-Blinn) and stencil geometry (tessellation-less) for filling
- Polygonization (with tangent space parameter distribution) of offset curves for stroking
> by converting it to quadratic bezier curve segments
Mathematically, the offset curve of a bezier curve is not a bezier curve of the same degree in the general case (exceptions are trivial cases like straight lines, circles and ellipses). Instead you get terrible high degree polynomials. You will have to approximate the offset curve anyway. I choose to use polygons (straight line segments), but you could also use splines (bezier segments), it is just overtly complex for little to no benefit IMO.
BTW, distance fields and offset curves are very similar. In fact the distance field is the set of all possible offsets of offset curves and the offset curves are the isolines on the distance field.
Here is a good summary of all the edge cases to think about in 2D rendering: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/22pathrender/12494534
About subpixel AA: Don't bother, LCDs are on the down trend.
[0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/... [1]: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070097123A1/en
Though a little caveat from my side, as I have written both 2D and 3D rendering engines. Let me tell you, they could not be more different. It is not just another dimension but completely different goals, use-cases and expectations.
So instead of:
> Everything we talked about extends to the 3D case as well.
I would say the entire post is mostly about 3D, not 2D rendering. If you are curious about this topic being approached for 2D rendering here is a nice write-up I found about that: https://ciechanow.ski/alpha-compositing/
One particular criteria for AA techniques that no one cares about in 3D but is very relevant in 2D is correctness and bias. AAA for example is heavily biased and thus incorrect. Drawing the exact same shape multiple times in the same place will make it more opaque / darker. The same thing does not happen with MSAA which has a bounded error and is unbiased.
But you are right, we don't know until president is set by a court. I am only warning people that laying back and hoping that copyright will apply as they wish is not a good strategy to defend your work. One should consider alternative legal constructs or simply not releasing material to the general public anymore.
A license (copyright law) is not a contract (contract law). Simply publishing something does not make the whole world enter into a contract with you. Others first have to explicitly agree to do so.
> Sorry, but the onus is on OpenAI to read the licenses not the creator.
They can ignore it because they never agreed to it in the first place.
> And throwing your hands in the air and saying "oh you can't do that in a license" is also of little use.
It is very useful to know what works and what does not. That way you don't trick yourself and your work to be safe, don't get caught by surprise if you are in fact not and can think of alternatives instead.
BTW, a thing you can do (which CaptainFever mentioned) and lots of services do because licenses are so weak is to make people sign up with an account and have them enter a ToS agreement instead.
There is a reason why it is generally advised to go with the established licenses and not invent your own, similarly to how you should not roll your own cryptography: Because it most likely won't work as intended.
e.g. License: This comment is licensed under my custom L*a license. Any user with an username starting with "L" and ending in "a" is forbidden from reading my comment and producing replies based on what I have written.
... see?
One can train a model exclusively on source code from the linux kernel (GPL) and then generate a bunch of C programs or libraries from that. And they could publish them under MIT license as long as they don't reproduce any identifiable sections from the linux kernel. It does not matter where the model learned how to program.
People crying for copyright in the context of AI training don't understand what copyright is, how it works and when it applies.
What they think how copyright works: When you take someones work as inspiration then everything you produce form that counts as derivative work.
How copyright actually works: The input is irrelevant, only the output matters. Thus derivative work is what explicitly contains or resembles underlying work, no matter if it was actually based on that or it is just happenstance / coincidence.
Thus AI models are safe from copyright lawsuits as long as they filter out any output which comes too close to known material. Everything else is fine, even if the model was explicitly trained on commercial copyrighted material only.
In other words: The concept of intellectual property is completely broken and that is old news.
Fighting conspiracy theories and disinformation, educating the next generation to vote more thoughtfully and independently, etc. "responsible citizenship" as the article puts it.
What I observe over and over again is that people are quick to draw the conclusion that everybody who arrived at a different worldview than them must be lacking logical reasoning abilities, thus be stupid. Because, how else would you not arrive at the only "logical" worldview? And the article makes the same mistake.
(For the record, I am not saying that there are multiple subjective truths, no, there is only one objective truth. However, nobody can truly claim to know knowing it.)
Furthermore, this misunderstanding about the problem perpetuates the problem. It is like treating an infectious disease by draining blood from the patient.
In a functional society everybody only verifies a small part of the truth, which they have expertise in. These parts then overlap and form the whole. No single individual has to be able to reason through its entirety and prove everything, as that is impossible. Instead, the system relies on trusting the partial results of others. And that is exactly the attack surface is.
Conspiracy theories, disinformation and populism are nourished by completely different mechanisms independent of thought and reasoning. Attacking them on that level is futile. Even if they superficially look like manipulation of the though process, they are instead emotional manipulation. Typically the erosion of trust with fear as replacement.