Sharlin

Sure. But the average water use per person per year where I live is in the tens of cubic meters. So 1000 cubic meters per year isn't that much.

I’m European and I’m extremely sure that when 90% of people hear "x m^3" they don’t think of it as "1000*x litres". And the majority of people likely can’t recall on the spot that 1 l = 1 dm^3 (a unit nobody uses), even if they remember that you multiply by 1000 to go from m^3 to dm^3. In any case most people don’t do conversions like that unless someone specifically asks them to.

Volumes are in general very unintuitive to people due to the cubic scaling. It’s further confused by the fact that the widely used decilitre, centilitre, and millilitre do scale linearly, unlike cubic metres. So 1 l = 1 dm^3 but 1 dl = 100 cm^3…

Well, water usage is usually metered in cubic meters. A thousand m^3 per year sounds much less than a million litres.

No, I’m not kidding when I say that some people even in this thread are claiming that AI = DLNNs, essentially.

I guess I should've included a sarcasm warning. But that's certainly a view a certain type of powerful people seem to hold. Richelieu's famous (probably apocryphal) quote and all that.

"If most everyone you meet is not a criminal, the definition of 'criminal' is not yet sufficiently comprehensive."

Edit: added scare quotes because it's difficult to be sarcastic on the internet these days.

That is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for something to be AI.

GP's point is that the goalposts of what counts as "AI" have been constantly shifted for decades, and right not it seems that even many HN commenters seem to have somehow gotten the idea that "AI" strictly means "deep learning neural networks" (or something even more specific like "generative transformers"). GP just went a bit too far in the opposite direction, being too inclusive in their definition.

FWIW, my working definition of "AI" is "anything discussed in the latest edition of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach". It seems to work well.

There is a fairly specific definition of what a cult is, and just being publicly worried about an existential risk isn’t that.

This cult stuff was tired in 2010 (hey, at least back then there was One True Leader!) and not any less tired now.

They have obviously been in an arms race with spammers and scammers since then. In 1998 it was relatively easy to stay ahead, but to keep winning for 30 years?

Well, the model can’t read the user’s mind, can it?

I mean, they are like autistic savants.

"Avoid a generic AI look" sounds like as useful an instruction as "Don’t make mistakes" or, back in the day, text-to-image prompts like "no mutated hands".

The sky is spherical, so straight lines in the sky aren’t straight lines on its 2D projection on the retina. Rather, straight lines are great circles. So if you trace the great circle that connects the sun and the moon, the moon should "point" along that great circle – which can be considerably off of what we think of as a straight line (which is curved in reality).

Getting 2x or 4x performance in your inner loops using a reasonable SIMD library is infinitely better than theoretically getting 8x performance with hand-coded nonportable intrinsics, because the latter is never going to happen in most programs, so the actual point of comparison is scalar code, or autovectorized code at best.

Another of the ways that software "engineering" is drifting even further away from traditional engineering. Failure mode analysis? Root cause analysis? I have no idea, I just talk to this magic box.

Somehow this managed to bring to my mind the venerable adventure game Gateway from 1992, taking place in Frederick Pohl’s Heechee universe. It’s probably been closer to 30 years since I’ve played it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(video_game)

Oh, but there is. One reason is that life on Earth seems to have appeared almost immediately after the crust cooled enough and the primordial ocean formed.

It’s exactly the correct idea. If the value of your land rises as a positive externality, it only makes sense that you contribute some of that back to the society that effected the rise in the first place.

Like browsing TikTok or messaging your friends? People want their devices to work like their friends’ devices do. Your prediction seems to be out of touch with how and why people actually use computing devices. Nobody actually uses them to "perform tasks".

I'm sure someone has already coined a law something like this:

The use of Excel expands until it fills the space of all use cases.

> I would bet my networth it was instructed to compromise huggingface as well. Not sure why everyone is falling for this.

$10? I'm inclined to take that bet. Your position doesn't seem to be supported by, you know, the real world.

I assumed the analogy meant that just by measuring the gravitational field outside the shell, you could figure out the mass distribution inside. And you can't, not in the general case.

> With gravity, mass plays the role of charge. It bends space-time around it, and it is always positive. There is no negative mass, so you can always infer the one real arrangement of stuff inside from the warping of space-time at the surface of your box.

This is a simplification to the point of just being wrong. Gauss’s law works for gravity; if you put a shell around Earth you have no way of knowing whether it’s a planet or an Earth-mass black hole inside. Assuming spherical symmetry of density, anyway.

The latin part of CJK fonts is often some crappy Times clone that they throw in as an afterthought.

Inspired by the sample text for "Nervous Sans": "Anal", an Arial with bad keming

Scroll down, they have an explicit example (with more fonts mixed in)

More subtle keming adjustments so that the font looks just slightly "off" would be great too.

No, I mean that eg. Red Alert clearly used 3D modeled and rasterized sprites, not hand-drawn.