lambdaone

The Sentry chip has to be get it right every time; the contained ASI only has to be lucky once.

I can't wait to give this root access to every machine I have.

This is classic AI goalposts-moving.

OK, they can play chess, but that's not real AI - can they write poems? OK, they can write poems, but that's not real AI - can they compose music? OK, they can compose music, but that's not real AI - can they translate languages? OK, they can translate text, but can they do maths? OK, they can do maths, but can they solve a Millenium Prize? <-- we are here

Incredibly creepy. I'm amazed they don't have any idea quite how user-hostile this is, or the reception it would receive.

Creepy as fuck. I'm really suprised they don't understand quite how user-hostile this is.

It can be used for in-jokey comedic effect. For example, referring to M*cr*sft W*nd*ws or Br*dc*m as though they were offensive terms. Or *r*cl*.

The momentum behind rust seems absolutely unstoppable at the moment, in the light of this, the adoption of Rust into the Linux kernel, and the adoption of for formally verified software by Amazon and Microsoft.

While I feel sorry for the people involved, Oracle as a company richly deserves this, for reasons far too familiar to everyone here. This is a come-uppance that has been waiting to happen for decades.

Technically, they could do a whole bunch of things, including doing multihop routing via other connected televisions or insecure WiFi networks. There's no evidence that they do this, as far as I know, but also no reason why they couldn't do this in the future if they wanted to.

"Owning the glass" is a euphemistic way of saying "owning the viewers".

The drive to make warp drives reality seems irresistable. But will they ever actually be possible?

It would seem relatively easy to eliminate this sort of infinite loop by ensuring that all loops are finite, function call depth limited and so on. It isn't a case where you hit the halting problem; the halting problem applies to general programs, not programs deliberately constructed out of parts with finite and calculable limits to runtime - no building the Ackermann function for example, as it contains a recursive loop. With the resources available to Apple, they really have no excuse.

Many cities are doing it already with bike lanes which support both push-bikes and electric bicycles.

With respect to tire pollution, buses are far less bad than cars. Providing a bus is not nearly empty, while the per-vehicle pollution is worse than a car, it's per-passenger pollution is much less.

If only it did. AI is designed to do what you tell it to, and that mostly works. But in the general case, AI does what it does, with no real guarantee of anything.

LLMs seem to have been fine-tuned to use metaphors, presumably because they read like vivid creative writing. The over-use of metaphor in LLM-produced text is exhausting.

Should chips like the Jetson Orin module be regarded as dual-use technologies? Or have similarly powerful embedded processors now become widely enough available that it isn't worth making the distinction any more?

He's right, of course, for those people who already have a mathematical gift, but the problem with that is that Tao has never experienced not being a mathematical genius, and is no more capable of understanding what it's like to not be a genius as an ordinary person is capable of understanding what it's like to be one.

I found the use of <SYMBOLS LIKE THIS> throughout the text without explanation somewhat off-putting. Clearly some sort of technical usage is being suggested, but it doesn't seem to add anything to the text.

This is a romantic and very appealing idea that flies in the face of reality. The market for skilled trade workers like plumbers, electricians, landscapers and so on is more or less in equilibrium, and the demand side of it is relatively inelastic. Dumping hundreds of millions of new workers into these trades will not increase demand sufficiently to let anyone earn a viable living from them.

250 MB is exactly the sort of bloat you'd expect from this sort of daft web-browser-wrapper application, and Apple get it there. 1.2 GB, on the other hand, is 5x as much, and completely insane even when you start off with daft as your starting point.

I wonder if the same is also true of other high-spatial-complexity activities like rock climbing and professional dancing? (Exercise level would of course be a counfounding varable to be eliminated in these cases.)

This is a really weak argument. High-quality government websites exist, most notably the British gov.uk system. All this is beside the point - the current age verification proposals are wrong, and attempt to solve the wrong problem in ways that look very much as if they are primarily intended for surveillance rather than child protection.

'Child safe' internet access by default with a very low bar to let adults enable their devices to access the public internet is the solution. The UK's mobile providers already offer this by default - all you have to do is to call your network provider and ask for the restrictions to be turned off, and you have full internet access. Any legislation to create 'child safe' filtering should mandate that vendors provide ways for adults to turn the filtering off, easily, quickly and no questions asked - and that it should be viewed as the responsible moral default for adults to have full access to the world in order to be able to exercise their responsibilities as citizens, not some sort of option for degenerates. Whether you do this device side or network side is a technical detail.

The other sane way to do this - and what we should have done from the start, instead of providing kids with full access to the adult world by default - would be to have created 'child safe' devices to provide children with filtered access. Parents could then be in charge of whether they want their children to have that access and at what age. However, that boat has sailed.

Interpreting the Second Amendment in a sane way might be a start. Its wording seems clear to me: it establishes the need for a well-regulated militia as necessary to the security of the state, and grants the right to bear arms in that context. No aspect of the current situation is "well-regulated", nor are citizens, apart from a tiny number of fringe groups, organized into militias, and those that are could scarcely be called well-regulated.

However, the current intpretation seems to be solely in terms of the end of that sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", with no context at all, and I think in a way that has a quite different meaning to what was intended.

And yet, when you come down to it, the right of the people to bear arms is not absolute and is "infringed" all the time in that sense; you don't allow automatic weapons to be used without special licenses, you don't allow small children to buy guns, you don't allow felons to own them. So it seems that the right to bear arms is not totally unrestricted; it's just a matter of where you draw the line, and I think the first part of the 2A is clear about the context in which that line was meant to be drawn.

I don't have any issue with an armed citizenry for national defense. Look at the Swiss; they are legally required to be armed, but in a highly regulated fashion, exactly so they have a citizen army ready to roll at any time.

This seems to me to be what the founders had in mind, not a free-for-all in which guns are available to all in an uncontrolled way.

Does this imply that Claude Opus was trained on Qwen output?

Windows XP and MacOS System 7 had pretty good looking GUIs. Since then, modern keyboard-and-mouse UIs have not really improved that much; it's mostly been just evolving and polishing styling. All the real innovation has been on touchscreen devices.

Algorthmic improvements in inference could make all that kit redundant very quickly - there are already moderately capable models that can be run on phones or laptops with specifications that are currently high-end but will be mainstream in another year or so.

This will lead to a superabundance of power-hungry compute power in the hyperscalers, and it's not entirely clear what can be done to consume it all and still run at a profit unless they manage to make ever greater gains for ever more compute-hungry models that cannot be run on consumer devices, unless they refresh their hardware at ever faster and more expensive rates.

The joke about data centers used to be that their core business was selling power at a loss; this may end up being true of the hyperscalers next.

I think Farage will probably win, but it will be a lot closer than he would like. While they will make no difference at all for his hard-core supporters, the financial allegations will be discouraging for at least some of his voters and will reduce his turnout, all serious anti-Farage tactical voters will vote for Binface as the most likely protest candidate, and a nontrivial number of voters will vote for Binface just because it would be funny to do so - Britain is the country of Boaty McBoatface, after all.[0]

According to the bookies, Binface is currently 8/1 to win (about 11% probability), and Farage 1/8 (about 89%), with the rest of the candidates nowhere. There's probably something Bayesian you could do to estimate the probability of various margins from that, but it's going to be uncomfortable for Farage no matter what - winning over Binface by an embarassingly small margin will not enhance his image, particularly if there is going to be another byelection called soon after with the financial issue continuing to be in the spotlight. The only way this works out favourably for Farage is if he scores a crushing victory over Binface with an increased voter share relative to his previous election result, and I think the odds of that are slim.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRS_Sir_David_Attenborough#Nam...

This is a vastly superior, earlier, and more detailed article compared to the one being discussed here [0], and should replace it.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48888331

That article is vastly superior and is the one that should be being discussed, not this.