bondarchuk

Bayes' law, many more people have romantic partners than former homeless living with them.

>just split into chunks interleaved with AI

That would be relatively benign, the other possibility is that the whole thing was encoded and then decoded through some neural representation.

>"(street background expanded)"

As in... expanded using generative AI? (The perspective on the lamps is really off unless they're different size lamps)

don't feed the trolls

Exactly. If "it's ugly and I don't want to see it" is ostensibly a valid argument, there's a much better target to aim for first. And easier to enforce, too.

HN is deeply contrarian so once a majority opinion gains a foothold it flips to the opposite opinion.

You can guard against misrepresentations of your goals by stating your goals clearly, which you already do. Any further misrepresentation is going to be either malicious or idiotic, a university should simply be able to deal with that.

Edit: just thought of a practical step you can take: host it somewhere else than github. If there's ever going to be a backlash the microsoft moderators might not take too kindly to the stuff about e.g. homosexuality, no matter how academic.

>Historical texts contain racism, antisemitism, misogyny, imperialist views. The models will reproduce these views because they're in the training data. This isn't a flaw, but a crucial feature—understanding how such views were articulated and normalized is crucial to understanding how they took hold.

Yes!

>We're developing a responsible access framework that makes models available to researchers for scholarly purposes while preventing misuse.

Noooooo!

So is the model going to be publicly available, just like those dangerous pre-1913 texts, or not?

Video games are incredibly popular and my mom plays them, does that mean Firefox should have video games baked in at the base layer?

>The problem is with any sort of closed system, the signal immediately gets gamed.

I agree, but..

>Therefore, the open system is the least bad of the available options.

this does not necessarily follow.

>A journal could still achieve prestige by curating and selecting the best available studies and research

See, this is just the kind of thing that I think will just not work when organized top-down like that. "Oh, we'll just make a prestigious journal by only letting the best papers in" - everyone could say that, but what would induce the authors of the best papers to submit them to your specific journal at all in the first place? Currently it's the fact that it's already prestigious, and this reputation has grown over many years through informal social processes that are very hard to codify.

>Scientific publishing is free speech. As such, it shouldn't be under the thumb of institutions or platforms that gatekeep for profit or status or political utility or any of a dozen different incentives that will fatally bias and corrupt the resulting publications.

Of course I agree, just to be clear I am a great proponent of openly accessible science - just think the prestige thing is an interesting corner case.

I think the difference is with a journal like Nature people are competing for strictly limited real-estate. The famous academic could still sign however many papers they like..

For example at the moment multi-account containers is a plugin. I needed it and installed the plugin and it's fine.

I don't think it's fine, if even the "just fucking use htmx" page can't be arsed to just actually fucking use htmx then something must've gone wrong somewhere.

Well, yes, this is exactly the kind of well-intentioned technical solution that just will not work at all when it comes in contact with human nature. "Oh boy my paper got accepted in Nature!" vs - "oh boy some people on the internet signed my pgp thing!". Just not the same.

I think the big missing thing in any proposed or actual fully open system is it does away with the difference between "prestigious" and "non-prestigious" journals. "Prestigiousness" is actually a really useful signal and it seems really difficult to recreate from the ground up in an open and fair system. It's almost like "prestige" can only emerge in a system of selfish/profit-motivated actors.

>The "server" (mocked client-side for this demo

Hmmm.... I wonder why that is......

So let's introduce a bias then, who cares? It's not a mortal offense. It would be cool to see statues painted realistically and non-horribly. And as TFA notes we have frescoes, mosaics, encaustic portraits etc.. that could be used as a guideline.

So where are all the plausible painted statue reconstructions?

>For the speed issue, if it's limited by the time to render a page

It's not, it's a physical limitation of the e-ink screen.

Any e-reader I've seen does full refresh every n pages where n is user-settable.

You are trying to add a lot of nuance to a topic which is just not very nuanced. Trains in germany are a nightmare because of decades of mismanagement. All the rest is copium, as the kids say.

It's really a pity for a large part of international train travel too, given Germany's central position in Europe. Many people I know (moi incluis) would really like to take the train for holiday or work travel (instead of airplane) but it's just not worth the risk of having to deal with Deutsche Bahn. Holland to Denmark by train, tried it once, never again.

>Mothballed and Milton are describing how they think things ought to be, or inevitably will be

There is again an enormous difference between describing how things ought to be and how things inevitably will be.

>for you to argue that it's somehow not real

Noone was saying that.

I wish I would've learned about ANNs in elementary school. It looks like a worthwhile and cool lesson package, if only they'd do away with the idiotic dogma...

>Consider for example Orch OR theory

Yes, or what about leprechauns?

"about to learn the hard way to put them back" would seem to imply you expect some real consequences from the lack of "fences".

Is-ought distinction. Mothballed and Milton are describing how things are, not how they should be, which latter seems to be your interpretation.

That explanation would only hold water if we were dealing right now with all kinds of problems stemming from lack of authoritarianism and too much freedom. I'm not really seeing it but maybe you have something in mind.

Just some data to give a little bit of context, however flawed or reductive it may be..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices#List_o...

You can just read it on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...

("(Redirected from Freedom of speech in the United Kingdom)" kind of funny innit)

It's just annoying to post unverifiable numbers without a credible source and expect others to do the hard work of verifying it (or just take you at face value, probably). It has nothing to do with AI except insofar as your own feelings on AI convinced you this is a reasonable method of communication.