Things are a bit cheaper. It's pretty diffuse, but then so are the supposed harms they perpetrate as well. HFT is realistically a tiny part of modern finance. Huge numbers of professional traders made in total much more money doing the same job before it was automated.
The point is to make sure every car has an AM radio installed, because it is still useful in emergencies. It's also not a particularly hard thing to do, it's the kind of thing that has for ages been squeezed into the corner of mobile phone radio chips and often just not hooked up in software.
It would be nice to have an updated standard for newer buildings, though. In practice fewer and fewer fittings are using screw-in lightbulbs at all but there's not another standard.
Labour has some internal splits: there are elements which are fairly left-wing and there are elements which are hard to distinguish from the Tories. There's almost always some degree of power struggle between the two happening inside the party, and the paradox the party is faced with is that the left wing part represents their members better but the right wing part is what wins elections. As such I would say that the UK leans pretty right wing and we've essentially never had a far-left government, and only occasionally flirted with some really left-wing policies.
Yeah, for any given decision an LLM will tend towards a fairly limited set of answers across a pretty broad range of contexts unless you specifically steer it otherwise. It becomes pretty obvious when you run a lot of similar prompts through them. I remember one story of a teacher getting their class to use chatGPT for a creative writing exercise, and then getting them to read them out and compare them. What seemed like creative and novel choices from the LLM to each of them individually were actually replicated across most of the class.
Yeah, though I would probably paint this as a case where the logic of the application is very tied up the UI, which makes it generally quite difficult to access the functionality as a library (or e.g. from the command line). Some applications have things seperated out enough, but this is usually something you need to start with as a goal. Other applications do have a scripting interface which you can use to automate things, and this can work quite well, but sometimes it is still very tied to the UI (e.g. blender, where it is quite powerful but you are essentially still driving the UI from the commands instead of describing the actions you want. e.g. you need to change modes in order to perform certain actions).
Yeah, I agree greenwashing is not the word here. I don't know what is, but if anything I would say you're trying to express something that is in an important sense opposite to greenwashing (greenwashing is trying to make something look good by falsely presenting it as eco-friendly, you're accusing something of boosting renewables by falsely presenting it as tied to them)
And yes, decentralization is the core aspect that is important, but renewables are importantly much more decentralized end-to-end compared to a diesel generator, because renewables, once in place, have no real central point of failure, while the supply chain for the diesel in the generator still has very important central points of failure that can be attacked (and explode quite easily due to the large amounts of flammable material they are carrying). Distributing the generation does help smooth over short-term disruptions but the overall throughput in the longer term can still be disrupted.
Also, while renewables might be out in the open, they are cheap and spread out over a wide area, which makes them pretty cost-ineffective to attack compared to more concentrated facilities.
Most countries do not have enough to independently supply their own energy needs from fossil fuels, and they need to import more or less continuously, while renewable energy infrastructure needs building out and then lasts a very long time. This massively affects the strategic effects of losing your supply: one becomes an acute problem very quickly while the other is still a problem but it takes a lot longer to become a real problem.
I don't think the main focus is on converting military operations themselves to work without fossil fuels, but more that if you can convert your civilian industry then you have a much better overall strategic position because your total demand for fossil fuels is much lower. (Strategy is a lot more than just your military)
GUI development in general is quite complex. You _can_ in principle compose a GUI from even simpler components: keyboard/mouse/touch events and blitting pixels to a screen, but this leaves you to do almost everything yourself. This is not only more work but also means there's a lot less consistency from GUI to GUI.
In the olden days, you would be expected to use the UI toolkit provided by the OS, which was designed to provide a consistent and complete implementation of each GUI element, which not only made things easier to navigate for users but also provided things like customizable theming and accessibility features more or less 'for free'. Nowadays it's much more like a free-for-all, and every application is just a little bit different, sometimes on purpose, sometimes just by accident. Accessibility is a complete crapshoot.
The web is similar. The people pushing for using 'the platform' are trying to capture exactly the same set of advantages as the old-school OS UIs, as well as the additional complication that we have a much more diverse set of devices with UIs nowadays.
It is possible to embed components in the middle of a pcb, but it's a pretty specialist process (read: a pain in the neck because it interleaves the pcb fabrication and assembly stages, making both steps more complicated).
I think the top-level comment is slightly missing the point of what GKH is saying: it's not 'it only took an hour to fix', it's "this amount of bugs is about what the kernel community finds and fixes each hour". i.e. this splashy announcement is really just a drop in the ocean of the volume that the kernel is handling.
What he means is that the headline-grabbing mythos output amounted to 10 actual bugs out of 79^H6 (and all of those got CVEs because that's how linux does it). The other 1300 CVEs came from other sources (the big increase likely being everyone else running LLMs through the codebase and filtering through the false positives). The Mythos output is mainly meant as an example of how even the top-tier models still have a high false-positive rate and that can be pretty tiring to deal with.
I do think he repeats some myths in the video, or at least confidently states some things that are not demonstrated to be true, but his core point of 'you still gotta check these things' seems pretty solid.
Replication seems like it would be unlikely to matter, at least with the current trajectory. At the moment any models capable of this are really heavy, there's a limited number of places that they could replicate to and they will not at all be stealthy about it.
This particular use of copyrighted material for training was ruled not fair use. I think a lot of engineers are hoping/expecting a clear line on whether all training is or is not fair use, like for example many claims that you could use it to essentially launder copyright off of some work while still keeping it fundamentally the same. This ruling seems to be a relatively obvious rejection of that viewpoint but doesn't necessarily apply to all training generally.
This correlates quite strongly with advanced mathematics capability in humans as well :P. In the list of people I would trust to add two two-digit numbers correctly, a maths PhD puts you in the bottom half of the list.
There is a bit of a goomba fallacy going on, not everyone who is anti-AI is against it for the same reason. But from my own experience, I find people who are against it for reasons of it devaluing their labor also tend to take the view that it doesn't really work, but this latter half tends to be a bit of motivated reasoning (in the general trend that if you are against something you will be more inclined to believe every argument that it is bad even if some of those arguments are pretty weak).
Would you prefer the money goes to middlemen? When supply is constrained and the manufacturer doesn't price to match, all that happens is scalping. Even if the memory die manufacturers gave away their products for free it wouldn't budge consumer RAM prices in this market environment.
Predictive texting/typing was basically the use for language models before LLMs. Not all language models are LLMs. And yes, correcting/predicting your typing has been the main feature for at least the last decade.
That would potentially rise to the level of recklessness but it is still not intent.
(To be clear, negligence and recklessness can still be criminal, but it is a matter of law what combination of act and mental state is criminal, and so the main question to me is whether there is currently any law in the US that would cover this case, given that the most obvious one, the CFAA, doesn't currently include recklessness or negligence)
To me it seems obvious that there should be some update to the law in this regard, but I'm not sure exactly what form is reasonable. (Arguably the CFAA should already have a stronger requirement for harm given how it's sometimes used to attack researchers reporting a problem. In most of the cases the labs are reporting it's not obvious there is notable harm).
I highly doubt the legal system is browsing social media to make their decisions. It is worth calling out, but it should be called out accurately (and that might also help understand why the legal system is making the decisions that it is).
I would argue the purpose the tools are designed for is only loosely correlated with their overall value. Secind-order effects and unintended consequences are common with any disruptive technology.
That only makes sense in a situation where renewables have already more than taken over, which kind of makes the point moot. I'll concede your point that traditional fireplaces are even worse than resistive heating, though not that a gas condensing boiler is because you're not getting 90% of the energy in the gas out as electricity.
Sure, you're using the themodynamically worst heating technology possible (I don't think I have ever lived in a house that used resistive electric heating). That still doesn't make it a useful comparison overall where people often pick better options, nor does it make it so that you're actually converting the other way when you use better options.
You can make a lot of money with shorts if you are correct about when the market will move. If you think that the market is overestimating the real value you have not even half of the puzzle.
You can convert electricty to heat at 1:1 in the absolute worst case. The opposite is not possible even in the absolute best case, and in practice you are looking at about a 60% exchange rate for 'high-grade' heat.
For the purposes of energy use, they are not. Heat is fundamentally worth less than the equivilent amount of electrical energy, due to these efficiency losses (which are not just a technology problem). It's misleading to compare them at any point in your analysis unless to highlight the problem with the comparison.
They are significant but so are those of alcohol. Most data indicates weed is safer. (This study puts it at about half in terms of harm to the user: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285843262_Drug_harm... . Alcohol ranks the highest in terms of harms to others but that is also a function of how widely it is used)