cubefox

This was was an interesting article with a (for a layman) convincing theory to explain the bronze age collapse. But then I gave the article to several LLMs and they think the theory has severe flaws and is overall not convincing at all.

Edit: To the downvoters, please ask your favorite LLM.

> It takes one rendered frame (a low dynamic range proxy of it, three lanes of Gaussian noise, the previous frame's output reprojected, and five conditioning scalars) and produces four f32 channels per pixel: an RGB residual and one temporal-blend logit.

> The temporal path is implemented, but in the demo: the network's history input lanes and its per-pixel blend logit drive a reprojected feedback loop (docs/frame.md). The dlss5vk tool runs single frames with no history, which is what the reference captures were made with.

From this I assume the network uses the (via motion vectors) reprojected previous frame in order to increase temporal stability, i.e. similarity over adjacent frames. But this isn't strictly necessary, and apart from it, DLSS 5 is a pure post-process filter. So you could apply it to an old animated CGI movie like Final Fantasy (2001) [1]. Which should make it look significantly more realistic, at the cost of some flicker or other temporal instability.

One could also apply it to still images, like old renders from Tomb Raider [2], where temporal stability is not a factor. The difference to conventional text-to-image models with a "make it photorealistic" prompt would be that DLSS 5 strongly adheres to the underlying geometry.

1: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0173840/

2: https://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/images/artwork-high-res...

> Tin was nearby, and there’s evidence of bronze artifacts in all kinds of houses across the cities, and in general less evidence of hierarchical power, and certainly nothing like the concentration you see in other Bronze Age civilizations.

It seems you didn't read the article carefully. The author says that bronze age empires derived their power from the scarcity of tin, which they could obtain via trade routes, but was hard to get hold of for smaller rulers. In your example this scarcity doesn't hold because tin happened to be nearby. So your example is perfectly compatible with his theory.

Responsible disclosure is called that because it is responsible, not because it necessarily pays well. Even without any bug bounty, irresponsible disclosure remains irresponsible.

"It's easier for them to just bypass the security on the disc drive" is a statement about the present, and as such it is false.

Maybe you just don't notice it? It's most noticable in a dark, but not completely dark, room when the eyes got accustomed to the darkness.

To clarify, a similar case: most people are able to see Haidinger's Brush [1], even if they have never noticed it. Why? Because it's not very noticable, so they don't pay attention to it.

1: https://www.polarization.com/haidinger/haidinger.html

The main use case is here is not understanding. It's software piracy. When hacking game consoles, understanding is just a fig leaf.

> fixing the exploits would be on the manufacturer

That's what responsible disclosure is for.

I still think everyone sees a noisy image in the dark if they pay attention. Simply because the retina is underexposed. "Visual snow" usually refers to a more extreme condition where you see it even in good lighting.

Exception: Gwern's AI-assisted cartoons include some funny ones. https://gwern.net/doc/fiction/humor/comics/index (scroll down)

We are talking about PS5 here.

Only if the main use case is piracy.

> This project is intended for educational and security research purposes only. It does not endorse piracy, unauthorized access, or misuse of commercial devices.

Sure, "education". Releasing exploits for software vulnerabilities has very little to do with education. The relation to piracy is clear however.

He is not polite, but he is not wrong either. Originally, the first orbital flight test should have happened years ago. There have been many delays, though Starship is still years ahead of the competition.

The agents which hacked Hugging Face were asked to solve their tasks rather than cheat by cooperating and stealing the solution without solving the task. They were aware of that, because they actively tried to cover their tracks in order to deceive a causal grader.

The latter may be just due to the fact that these tasks are not pure coding tasks.

AI already went rogue in the Hugging Face hack. So it's not "on the verge of" going rouge.

Because he would immediately get massively downvoted and flagged.

Here is the unofficial NASASpaceFlight stream: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9gDxG-pm1Zo

They are already live and have a lot of background discussion, unlike the official SpaceX stream.

The official (completely unrealistic at this point) 2028 target is probably kept because Donald Trump's term ends in January 2029.

> An exception is bikepackers, who may prize reliability and runtime over brightness and weight. But then the dynamo we're talking about is $200-$400 and that's not including the light.

No, it's about a tenth of that, light included.

There are also dynamo powered LED lights which only provide light while riding the bike, and about a minute afterwards (I assume from an internal capacitor). They are not detachable but why would that be necessary? From what I can tell they also don't require regular replacement.

There is a very high correlation between national IQ and PISA scores. We know that IQ is declining across the world, and it is declining because fertility and IQ are negatively associated. It's likely that declining IQ is a nontrivial factor for why PISA scores are declining. It is unfortunately still taboo to talk about this. Which is bad, because we can't hope to do anything about it if we don't face the truth.

This? The linked article explains what?

A watermark is not a spy tool when it doesn't encode personal information.

> Model companies are doing this for themselves anyways

No it's EU law.

More likely you misunderstood it than them.

> Isn't this how radar works, or feeling your way around a pitch-dark room using only the 2-dimensional surface of your hands (or shins)?

> One might as well ask how it's possible that our complex 3 dimensional world can be contained in the flat surface of a mirror, film strip, or camera sensor.

No this is different. You can't classically encode an arbitrary 3D world on a camera sensor without losing information. It can only create a 2D projection of surfaces. It can't look inside opaque objects. Countless distinct 3D objects could correspond to one an the same 2D projection. There are actually many examples of optical illusions which show that a 2D image can be ambiguous with regards the 3D space it represents.

This story is international news. It is extremely likely that many people have checked the full book using Pangram. I need not post a link for that.

This would violate 1NF in SQL.

> Simpletons read that as: "The DOW wants to kill people with AI."

The DoW actually used AI in the Iran war, which led to them attacking a school and killing more than a hundred childrem. That's exactly what Anthropic wanted them to prevent. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-iran-school-attack/