ZooCow

I still haven’t seen a convincing exoneration for how to avoid UBI warping politics. It seems politically impossible to lower (see Alaska’s challenges [1]) and too attractive for politicians to promise to increase in order to easily win votes.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/07/03/738569508/university-of-alask...

I had that same issue, and to solve it, I connected to the TV with ADB and disabled the default launcher.

I agree. My Google TV with Projectivity Launcher shows zero launcher ads unlike my Apple TV. As a bonus, it lets me install SmartTube and use DeArrow and Sponsor Block.

I just wish I could get something similar as a native iOS app. Although I can use Safari extensions, the Safari YouTube experience on iOS is terrible.

This post unfortunately isn’t drawing the necessary distinctions between utility models, published applications, and issued patents. And it isn’t focusing on the claims. Patent law is complicated and it is easy to draw the wrong inferences.

You can follow the prosecution of the US application here: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/18608960

They could benchmark the price against comparable countries/regions. Pay no more than, say, 110% of the average cost of the drug in Europe.

Right. If it were trained through August 1939, how much prompting would be necessary to get it to predict aspects of WWII.

I had a similar thought but about asking the LLM to predict “future” major historical events. How much prompting would it take to predict wars, etc.?

A plausible alternative explanation for asking Johansson:

  (1) They cast the current actor to test the technology and have a fallback.  The actor sounds somewhat different from Johansson but the delivery of the lines is similar.  

  (2) They then ask Johansson because they want to be the company that brought “Her” to life.  She declines.  

  (3) They try again shortly before the event because they really want it to happen.

  (4) They proceed with the original voice, and the “her” tweet happens because they want to be the ones that made it real. 

Asking shortly before the release is the weakest link here. It’s possible they already had a version trained or fine tuned on her voice that they could swap in at the last minute. That could explain some of the caginess. Not saying it’s what happened or is even likely, but it feels like a reasonable possibility.

I’m not sure of the meta factors have driven it recently, but at least in some large US metro areas, it became enough of a problem that some coffee chains have recently switched from having in-store seating and restrooms to pick-up only without those amenities.

I wonder how much this has to do with LLMs making the essay portion of college applications (and even high school grades) somewhat useless at distinguishing among students.

Having a tightly controlled exam without the possibility of AI assistance seems to be the best option left for determining scholastic aptitude.

The article is light on the actual allegations, but at least they link to the complaint [1] (so few articles do). The claims are: Public Nuisance, Negligence, and Gross Negligence.

The special damage they claim to have suffered seems to primarily relate to expanding and diverting resources to deal with mental health issues of students.

The table of contents of the complaint is a good summary of their assertions, including:

    Defendants’ apps have created a youth mental health crisis.

    Defendants target children as a core market, hooking kids on their addictive social media platforms.

    Children are uniquely susceptible to Defendants’ addictive apps.
    
    Defendants design their apps to attract and addict youth.

    Millions of kids use Defendants’ products compulsively.
    
    Defendants' defective products encourage dangerous "challenges."
    
    Defendants' defective social media apps facilitate and contribute to the sexual exploitation and sextortion of children, and the ongoing production and spread of child sex abuse material online.

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23832853-maryland-sc...

> In other words, and I'm hardly the only one saying this: ChatGPT is not a replacement for people. It's an augmentation. It's a bicycle for the mind, to steal Steve Jobs's famous metaphor.

This is the analogy that jumped out to me as well. LLMs seem to be more of a vehicle than a destination. Like a bicycle, LLMs need to be operated with the direction and effort of an operator to ensure it stays on course and doesn’t veer into traffic.

Continuing the analogy, I suspect that LLMs will open up traditional white collar jobs to more people. More people can get to the destination on time with the aid of a bicycle than on foot.

The vaccine was the shingles vaccine and it was administered in 2013.

How do we know that these are the actual confidential rules it follows rather than text it “made up” given the prompt?

The opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_c0ne.pdf

It's also a way for them to save on credit card processing fees by trading the fees of multiple (relatively) small drink purchases for one fee for the gift card purchase.

An often overlooked innovation of iTunes was delayed billing, which converted multiple separate song transactions into one bundled transaction to save on credit card transaction fees.

Here’s the decision being referenced:

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/myvmojgodvr/...

>The swift expansion of generative AI is driving the transition from a Social Graph to a Content Graph. . . . The core principle that Facebook was built on is gradually crumbling.

Arguably, the proliferation of cheap generative AI content will cause the value of that “fake” content to decrease. Users may begin to value the “real” content created by one’s friends. So Meta’s social graph may become increasingly valuable in the age of AI content.

OSS Simple Sabotage Field Manual

https://archive.org/details/SimpleSabotageFieldManual/page/n...

Pages 28-32 are the most referenced but the rest is interesting too.

> The intuition is that if a paper or patent is disruptive, the subsequent work that cites it is less likely to also cite its predecessors

This intuition seems to overlook the culture of citations in the patent space. There, the incentive is for applicants to be over inclusive with citations. This is combined with the increasing ease with which references can be found.

Have there been any UBI plans designed to avoid warping politics? It seems politically impossible to lower (see Alaska’s challenges [1]) and too attractive for politicians to increase in order to easily win votes.

[1] https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/2019/9/5/208...