363 karma · joined December 2, 2022
you would have to ask a judge about that because its a novel legal question. obviously nobody anticipated this technology at the time it was written so ultimately it will have to be a court that decides how to apply existing laws.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
the process of training requires reproduction and distribution of the works internally as part of the data processing pipeline so why wouldn't you need a license for that?
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/downtown-sf-office-bu... https://www.globest.com/2023/06/07/wells-fargo-sells-san-fra...
or very clarifying when you realize that the same institutions will do the same things no matter what name you put on them.
Concerned Parent: Then why do you need immunity from product liability laws to sell them?
this is objectively false. it is generally accepted in the scientific community that wearing masks for an extended period of time is dangerous and leads to respiratory illnesses.
how exactly is that evidence that he believes "people don't have a right to exist?"
it seems like some people think people with his beliefs don't have a right to exist. maybe they are just projecting the hate in their own hearts onto their enemies/victims?
any evidence to support that claim?
corporate "values*" always come with the small print of "*as long as it maximizes profit."
it is silly to think that any for-profit corporation is ever going to do something that is directly contrary to its financial interests.
you can (and i do) definitely argue that having strong values does contribute to long term profitability, but the purpose of the "values" is to maximize profit.
when a conflict arises between the values and profitability, profitability always wins.
with autonomous/remote vehicles you have a fleet of driver-less vehicles that are capable of fully-autonomous operation in some circumstances but are remotely monitored/controlled for situations they can't handle.
this means that you can have a remote driver who is continually switching between driving different vehicles and only driving in the situations where actually needed and profitable.
with driver based transportation when you get into low utilization hours then drivers and cars have to be pulled of the street, the drivers who are working spend more time sitting unprofitably, and they have to driver further to pick up rides.
in a remote scenario you can keep all of your driver-less cars on the street (parked) and your remote driving staff takes control of the car closest to each ride request to pick up and deliver that ride so they spend much more time driving with much less mileage waste.
the big blocker, and why autonomous/remote vehicles are not being rolled out more widely, is that remote requires lots of very reliable low latency bandwidth.
5G (mmWave 5G in particular) is a key enabling technology. until you get mmWave 5G or some comparable technology the bandwidth for remote at scale doesn't exist.
getting their technology working profitably at scale is obviously the first step and it is taking much longer than expected.
> app that is easily replicable
Waymo already has their own app and will continue to. the problem is that if you only have limited service in one small market then nobody has that app installed.
business travel is a large and highly profitable segment of ride sharing and it is dominated by Uber because it has the largest install base.
> What does Uber bring to the table at all?
demand. Waymo only has to accept a ride request if it meets their profitability metrics so this deal is all upside for them. if they have more profitable demand through their own app then they use their fleet for that and if not they fall back to Uber and get some free advertising to Uber customers in the process.
you are the one making assumptions and imputing negative intent.
i do agree that it ultimately does come down to the point that they "don't want to," because of course a treaty is just words on paper, so it is always a choice whether to follow it or not.
on the other hand, to assume that Russia's choice to abide by its treaty obligations is because their nukes "don't work" is a wild leap of fantasy based on no evidence or logic whatsoever.
Russia is clearly massively outgunned both militarily and economically by the US/NATO and nobody disputes this.
logically it is in Russia strategic interests to pressure the US into nuclear treaties that reduce US nuclear capacity so that Russia can be more competitive militarily at a lower cost.
Russia would not be able to maintain even their war in Ukraine without the support or acquiescence of their allies and countries that see a benefit in remaining somewhat neutral (china, india, brazil, turkey, saudi arabia, iran, and many others). Russia would have zero chance whatsoever in direct all out warfare with US/NATO and they are well aware of this and so they have to play to the court of international opinion in order to stay alive.
consequently, it is in Russia's interests to avoid escalation, especially nuclear escalation, as much as possible, and this is the course they have been following so far.
i am not making any assumptions about Russian intent (which i know nothing about) but the objective facts of their strategic situation mean that launching (or testing) nukes would be suicidal and so, assuming that they are rational enough to have basic survival instincts, this seems highly unlikely unless it is a last ditch mutually assured destruction play where they know they are going to be conquered either way.
Russia is honoring its treaty commitments not to test nuclear weapons.
who are, unfortunately, pretty much just that. there is an enormous risk in the US, which has not fought a war on its own soil since the civil war, and has not been in a real existential battle since WWII, that the younger the decision makers get, the more detached from the reality of actual war they become.
the biggest war mongers are generally people who have no combat experience at all and have never face any real adversity in their lives. but even combat experience, when it is limited to being part of a vastly superior force that slaughters its opponents at will, is nothing compared to the experience of having your own country invaded.
it has no place whatsoever in intelligent conversation.
a 50 year old bullet may not work. are you going to put a gun in your mouth and test it? (ironically, there is a name for that)
it makes zero difference whether russia's nukes work or not. if they launch, then the US launches also, and the fallout and nuclear winter kills untold numbers.
if russia really thinks their nukes will have a high failure rate, then they will just launch more, and the US will launch more in retaliation before they ever hit.
the hot takes of twitter arm chair warriors have no place in reality. if you are even thinking of taking this bs seriously, please don't.
cool. i am interested to try it out.
commodities with inelastic supply and inelastic demand are prone to very wide price swings.
inelastic supply means that increasing prices don't increase supply. in the case of lithium, it take time to bring new production capacity online, so supply is very inelastic in the short term.
inelastic demand means that increasing prices do not decrease demand. in the case of lithium, batteries are a very valuable product, and the raw cost of lithium is a small percentage of their total value, so increasing prices for lithium do very little to reduce demand.
the price movement here is totally predictable and exactly what you would expect based on standard economic formulas taking into account supply/demand elasticity. it is not speculation or gambling.
demand went up, supply lagged, the price spiked, supply increased, the price went back down.
electric car sales may still be growing but growing at a lower rate, and projected demand growth is probably decreasing relative to projected supply, so the price is falling.
to construct an SQL query you need to know the database schema, you need to be able to specify the relationships between tables, and you need to specify what data you are trying to retrieve.
the only way using plain written language can work is if you can infer the correct table names and relationships from the input text, which can only work if the database follows very strict naming conventions and/or proper foreign key usage and is small enough that none of the table or column names are ambiguous.
plain written language is much more ambiguous than a formal language like SQL.
how do you resolve ambiguities in the naming of tables and columns in the schema and in the input text for queries? if the output is wrong, is there an iterative process that can help the user refine the query?
metrics become problematic because they are reductive and they are tied to compensation, promotion, or other rewards.
here we are talking about a raw dump of all data, which is the opposite of a reductive metric, and there is no compensation or reward tied to providing the data.
really inspiring take here. this is like saying fentanyl is a great product because people really like it. but i think you are wrong. these apps are mostly used by children and young adults who will grow out of them and turn away from using digital experiences in general because they are addictive and harmful. that is not a good thing for the industry in the long term.
i dont understand how this relates to transparency. nothing about giving patients the right to access their own medical records involves metrics in any way.
we know exactly how they work. all they do is use statistical probabilities with limited randomization to synthesize new outputs from massive samples of inputs.
essentially a machine for plagiarizing spam.
gpt, and its general approach, will never have much value other than a few limited fields, because it can never produce anything that wasn't in its original input set and it is incapable of reasoning and analysis.
the world is already drowning is junk information. gpt has very limited commercial applicability because it is the opposite of what people actually want and need, which is a way to filter and analyze the massive pile of information they already have. gpt does the opposite and creates more junk information based on an analysis free synthesis of existing junk.
medicine is way out of my field, so i don't have personal experience and can only go on what i have read, but i would guess that it is a lot like most other highly specialized fields: pre-med is a waste other than basic bio/chem, medical school is mostly information you will never use, residency is where you learn how to actually do the job, and then you get into a specialty and learn that specialty, and what you learn for your specialty is the only thing you really use.
highly doubtful, but i would be interested to see your evidence. IQ tests might provide a rough gating mechanism but applying them in the field you don't have any control group so there is no proof that they are actually selecting people correctly (you don't know how many good performers you are rejecting because they didn't score well on the flawed test).
> maximum level of education attainable
since the education system is also designed by the same misguided people who designed IQ tests it wouldn't be surprising if scoring well on IQ tests also leads to doing well in the education system, but that doesn't meant that either are doing anything of any value.