925 karma · joined June 2, 2019
Imagine the Uranium Committee of early 40's, where Szilard and others were babbling about 10kg of some magical metal exploding briefly with the power of a sun, with the best evidence being some funky trail in an alcohol vapor chamber.
Maybe sama is right, maybe not, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
On Linux, the close() system call rarely fails unless you provide an invalid file descriptor. L.Torvalds has stated that on Linux, close() immediately removes the file descriptor from the process, regardless of the underlying implementation's success or failure. Any errors related to the actual closing of the file are handled within the kernel and won't affect user-space programs. I know that go Close is not posix/linux close, but in majority of cases it'll boil down to it.
To quote:
Retrying the close() after a failure return is the wrong thing to
do, since this may cause a reused file descriptor from another
thread to be closed. This can occur because the Linux kernel
always releases the file descriptor early in the close operation,
freeing it for reuse; the steps that may return an error, such as
flushing data to the filesystem or device, occur only later in
the close operation.
Many other implementations similarly always close the file
descriptor (except in the case of EBADF, meaning that the file
descriptor was invalid) even if they subsequently report an error
on return from close(). POSIX.1 is currently silent on this
point, but there are plans to mandate this behavior in the next
major release of the standard. 240V: Split-phase, this gives you 120V between each leg and neutral, and 240V across the two legs.
208V: The interphase in a 3-phase system.
HTH, ducking out :)
A quick point: transient surges are usually fine. Both cables and circuit breakers are designed to fail (trip or burn out) under sustained overloads. For example, a 16A Class C circuit breaker might take around an hour to trip with a constant 17A load, but a ~80A load would trip it ~instantly.
PS: Of course, everything is a matter of integration over time (heat dissipation in cables mostly).
Shame it wasn't designed for EU sockets. 230V*16A = 3700W, or double that on separate breakers!
Want visually recognizable unique identifiers?
JAGRSW-UID-<192bit-input-from-urandom-encoded-in-base64>
JUID-<192bit-input-from-urandom-encoded-in-base64>
Seriously, these UUID debates are about as sensible as arguing over XML.
PS: x64 is a bit ambiguous, as it was not uncommon to use it for Itanium ;)
grub-common
grub2
grub2-common
grub-efi-amd64
grub-efi-amd64-bin
grub-efi-amd64-signed
grub-efi-amd64-signed-template
grub-efi-amd64-unsigned
grub-efi
grub-pc
grub-pc-bin
Usually, I end up trying things randomly (leaving some funny mess in /boot/EFI b/c not sure if --efi-directory should contain /boot/EFI prefix, or just /boot or nothing), then running some semi-random grub-install command, and eventually, it starts to work. But this is far from intuitive.
You acknowledge that legal pornography, while technically possible, faces significant hurdles due to rampant piracy and legal loopholes. This creates a situation where accessing legal pornography is difficult and impractical for most, making the initial statement, that distribution is effectively illegal, more accurate than your initial "Incorrect" suggests.
Whether it's advancements in LLMs, with features like long-term memory, or breakthroughs in other areas of ml, it's not guaranteed that humans will remain needed in the research process.
138 misdemeanor law: Whoever, professionally engaged in the provision of services, demands and collects a payment higher than the applicable fee for the service, or intentionally, without a justified reason, refuses to provide the service to which he is obliged, shall be subject to a fine.
Some forms of propagation of fascism, communism and nazizm is prohibited in Poland, but I guess it probably would be illegal to refuse service to someone who otherwise declares support for some reprehensible ideas, and does that privately, so it doesn't fall under hate or other laws.
This should apply even to past criminals.
Such laws protect against racism and other forms of discrimination, and they help integrate convicts back into society, at the cost of "commercial freedom".
In jurisdictions with these laws (I know at least one), it's impossible to create, for example, bars only for men or only for women or refuse service to people we don't like (also, because they belong to some group, incl. morally reprehensible groups). There are some hacks around this and exceptions, but generally, it works and solves more problems, than it creates. Private gatherings or clubs are likely ok (nondiscrimination laws should still apply).
UK and US are outliers here with their "can refuse service to anyone" approach.
This would mean that a celebrity could possess a voice similar to 0.5 million to 5 million other women, and potentially claim royalties if their voice is used.
Geohot (https://geohot.github.io/blog/) estimates that a human brain equivalent requires 20 PFLOPS. Current top-of-the-line GPUs are around 2 PFLOPS and consume up to 500W. Scaling that linearly results in 5kW, which translates to approximately 3 EUR per hour if I calculate correctly.
With abundant electric cars (at this future point in time) and clean electricity powering heating, transportation, and manufacturing, some AIs could be repurposed for CO2 capture.
It sounds deceptively easy, but from an engineering standpoint, it likely holds up. With free energy and AGI handling labor and thinking, we can achieve what a civilization could do and more (cause no individual incentives come into play).
However, human factors could be a problem: protests (luddites), wireheading, misuse of AI, and AI-induced catastrophes (alignment).
AI does not experience fatigue or distractions => consistent performance.
AI can scale its processing power significantly, despite the challenges associated with it (I understand the challenges)
AI can ingest and process new information at an extraordinary speed.
AIs can rewrite themselves
AIs can be multiplicated (solving scarcity of intelligence in manufacturing)
Once achieving AGI, progress could compound rapidly, for better or worse, due to the above points.Engineering Level:
Solve CO2 Levels
End sickness/death
Enhance cognition by integrating with willing minds.
Safe and efficient interplanetary travel.
Harness vastly higher levels of energy (solar, nuclear) for global benefit.
Uncover deeper insights into the laws of nature.
Explore fundamental mysteries like the simulation hypothesis, Riemann hypothesis, multiverse theory, and the existence of white holes.
Effective SETI
End of violent conflicts
Fair yet liberal resource allocation (if still needed), "from scarcity to abundance"Also, a question for those knowledgeable about the PCI subsys: it looked like something NVIDIA didn't care about, rather than something they actively wanted to prevent, no?
Searching for vulns and producing patches in source code is a bit problematic, as the databases of vulnerable source code examples and their corresponding patches are neither well-structured nor comprehensive, and sometimes very, very specific to the analyzed code (for higher abstraction type of problems). So, it's not easy to train something usable beyond standard mem safety problems and use of unsafe APIs.
The area of fuzzing is somewhat messy, with sporadic efforts undertaken here and there, but it also requires a lot of preparatory work, and the results might not be groundbreaking unless we reach a point where we can feed an ML model the entire source code of a project, allowing it to analyze and identify all bugs, producing fixes and providing offending inputs. i.e. not yet.
While decompilation is a fairly standard problem, it is possible to produce input-output pairs somewhat at will based on existing source code, using various compiler switches, CPU architectures, ABIs, obfuscations, syscall calling conventions. And train models on those input-output pairs (i.e. in reversed order).
AI's potential for harm might be limited for now in some scenarios (those with warning sings ahead of time), but this might change sooner than we think.
The notion that AGI will be restricted to a single data center and thus susceptible to shutdowns is incorrect. AIs/MLs are, in essence, computer programs + exec environs, which can be replicated, network-transferred, and checkpoint-restored. Please note, that currently available ML/AI systems are directly connected to the outside world, either via its users/APIs/plugins, or by the fact that they're OSS, and can be instantiated by anyone in any computing environment (also those net-connected).
While AGI currently depends on humans for infrastructure maintenance, the future may see it utilizing robots. These robots could range in size (don't need to be movie-like Terminators) and be either autonomously AI-driven or remotely controlled. Their eventual integration into various sectors like manufacturing, transportation, military and domestic tasks implies a vast array for AGI to exploit.
The constraints we associate with AI today might soon be outdated.
It's challenging to encapsulate AI/ML progress in a single sentence, but even assuming LLMs aren't a direct step towards AGI, the human mind exists. Due to its evolutionary limitations, it operates relatively slowly. In theory, its functions could be replicated in silicon, enhanced for speed, parallel processing, internetworked, and with near-instant access to information. Therefore, AGI could emerge, if not from current AI research, then perhaps from another scientific branch.
> We've built some incredibly impressive tools, but so far, nothing that looks or feels like a concept of will (note, not consciousness) yet, to the best of my knowledge.
Objectives of AGIs can be tweaked by human actors (it's complex, but still, data manipulation). It's not necessary to delve into the philosophical aspects of sentience as long as the AGI surpasses human capability in goal achievement. What matters is whether these goals align with or contradict what the majority of humans consider beneficial, irrespective of whether these goals originate internally or externally.
Modeling an entity that surpasses our intelligence, especially one that interacts with us, is an extraordinarily challenging, if not impossible, task.
Concerning the potential for harm, consider the example of Vladimir Putin, who could theoretically cause widespread destruction using nuclear weapons. Although safeguards exist, these could be circumvented if someone with his authority were determined enough, perhaps by strategically placing loyal individuals in key positions.
Putin, with his specific level of intelligence, attained his powerful position through a mix of deliberate actions and chance, the latter being difficult to quantify. An AGI, being more intelligent, could achieve a similar level of power. This could be accomplished through more technical means than traditional political processes (those being slow and subject to chance), though it could also engage in standard political maneuvers like election participation or manipulation, by human proxies if needed.
TL;DR It could do (in terms of negative consequences) at least whatever Vladimir P. can do, and he can bring civilization to its knees.
My aim isn't to critique the English proficiency of non-native speakers, especially those from non-Proto-Indo-European linguistic backgrounds. As a non-native English speaker myself, I understand the challenges.
However, I found it trully hard to comprehend the airport's side of the communications due to heavily accented and unclear pronunciation. Shouldn't there be a greater emphasis on air traffic controllers improving their English skills, since English is lingua franca (pun intended) of aviation.
Or perhaps this is irrelevant, considering aviation's global nature. Are pilots expected to adapt to and understand communications with strong accents?