shkkmo

Slight mismatches in capacity can be OK in series too, as long as you have a BMS watching the cell voltages to make sure none get too low when discharging and none get too high when charging. The risk is that the lower capacity cells get too low or too high while the overall pack voltage seems fine, causing dendrites to form inside those cells, leading to a short and a scary fire. It really comes down to how well the BMS is designed / programmed and how much you want to trust it.

Most people aren't aware of how dangerous it is to try to "revive" a cell that got too low so this technology definitely comes with significant risks for user error.

The explanation of how the estimate is made is more detailed, but here is the referenced conclusion:

>> So (11508 websites * 2^16 sha256 operations) / 2^21, that’s about 6 minutes to mine enough tokens for every single Anubis deployment in the world. That means the cost of unrestricted crawler access to the internet for a week is approximately $0.

>> In fact, I don’t think we reach a single cent per month in compute costs until several million sites have deployed Anubis.

> PoW increases the cost for the bots which is great.

But not by any meaningful amount as explained in the article. All it actually does is rely on it's obscurity while interfering with legitimate use.

> Stop whining about free projects/labour man. The same people comment oh well these AI scrapers are scraping so many websites and taking livelihood of website makers and now you have someone who just gave it to ya for free and you are nitpicking the wrong things.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that this tool is not fit for purpose and is inappropriate to be used by the projects that have adopted it.

The proof of work scheme is idiotic. As explained in the article, it's super easy to mine enough tokens to bypass for any bad actors, while it interfers and wastes the time of good actors.

It's almost like the author deliberately designed a tool that only looks like it is doing something while actually trivially allowing the very thing it was supposedly built to prevent.

> unless fertility rates markedly change.

Which seems highly likely. Fertility rates change far faster than they influence population demographics.

> It's extremely biased, and religiosity is one of the most predictive factors.

If you ignore income, education, economic opportunity and how many generations ago the family immigrated and all the other important factors.

You keep trying to paint a simplistic picture of a complex dynamic.

Not really, if you look at the actual birth rates, it maps to economic success more than religious identity.

Yes, we all know that global population growth is mainly happening in Africa and other poor countries.

You also cite global retention rates for islam. Those retention rates are memetic and highly dependent on the same set of poorer, non-western countries so you are comparing applyes to oranges. If you look at western countries, the retention rate is pretty similar.

You keep stretching statistics to reinforce your world view without trying to actually understand the statistics, which is why I assume you keep repeating garbage like "Any group that maintains a positive fertility rate will multiply indefinitely."

Your understanding of the statistics is lacking.

A 84% reproductive cultural "replacement rate" means that in order to maintain the population protestants need to have an average of 2.38 (2/0.84) kids to have the same number of protestants in the next generation.

The real number is actually much higher than that because what you really need is to measure how many children of two protestants also marry a protestant. This percentage is lower than (pew estimates this as 75%) so now you need to have have an average of 3.17 (2/(.83*.75) kids just to maintain the protestant population.

These are, of course, woefully inaccurate numbers and exclude all kinds of factors. The reason I present them isn't to try to estimate what the numbers are but to make it clear that "Any group that maintains a positive fertility rate will multiply indefinitely" is not simply not anywhere near true. You just can't accurately estimate the growth rate of a cultural identity by looking at the birth rate.

> For a religion like Islam that integrates even more significantly into one's life (and correlates very positively with good fertility rates), these figures are going to be even higher and getting within statistical noise of 100%.

That's not what the science says. The rates of transmission are only slightly higher and definitely don't approach 100%.

These transmission rates also aren't "natural laws" but contigent effects that are driven by any of a number of different cultural, religious, economic and legal factors.

Even if a minority cultural identity does manage to grow through reproductive practices, it can still be fragmented by schisms (especially common with religious identity) or out competed by memetically superior identities that pulls converters from a wide range of cultural identities.

Your view is here is incredibly simplistic and ignores all kinds of basic evidence from throughout history.

> Honestly, claiming DeepMind is still some scrappy London-based startup is quite unfortunate :/

Since I didn't do that, I'm not sure how that is relevant or productive.

> work is, in practical and legal senses, U.S.-based...

This seems factually false. The work happening there has to comply with UK laws, not US laws and the practical locus of researchers located there provides a pool of talent that makes it a better place to do an AI startup than places that lack it.

The point is that London is enough of a research hub in AI for it to be worth maintaining a significant research presence there and to even make researchers interested in relocating there.

DeepMind is obviously foriegn owned and controlled now, which does limit the UK's ability to exert control of and profit from it. That only makes weakening the institutions they do control, like ATI, more significant.

It's not just the HQ, the only AI researcher I know personally is an American who moved to London to work on AI with DeepMind well after the acquisition.

> As GP said, you can take this both ways.

You can, but one of those ways is objectively worse for the reasons explained in this thread and in the article.

When you have to read a query out of order to understand it then something is wrong with the structure of the query language.

Your approach only works with massive assumptions about the structure of the data or a very simplistic data structure.

SELECT statments don't just use table names, they can use aliases for those table names, views, subqueries, etc.

The FROM / JOIN blocks are where the structure of the data your are selecting from is defined. You should not assume you understand what a SELECT statement means until you have read those blocks.

> It's actually very funny to me that you are stating these definitions so authoritatively despite the terms not having any sort if rigor attached to either their definition or usage.

Huh? My entire point was that AI and AGI are loose, vague terms and if you want to be clear about what you are talkng about, you should use more specific terms.

> I've never seen someone state, as fact, that LLMs are AGI before now.

Then you probably haven't been paying attention.

https://deepmind.google/research/publications/66938/

> I've never seen someone state, as fact, that LLMs are AGI before now.

Many LLMs are AI that weren't designed / trained to solve a narrow problem scope. They can complete a wide range of tasks with varying levels of proficiency. That makes them artificial general intelligence or AGI.

You are confused because lots of people use "AGI" as a shorthand to talk about "human level" AGI that isn't limited to a narrow problem scope.

It's not wrong to use the term this way, but it is ambiguous and vague.

Even the term "human level" is poorly defined and if I wanted to use the term "Human level AGI" for any kind of discussion of what qualifies, I'd need to specify how I was defining that.

People who are certain that computers can't replicate human level intelligence aren't being intellectually rigourous. The same applies to people who are certain computers can replicate human level intelligence.

We can make arguments for informed guesses but there are simply still too many unknowns to be certain either way. People who claim to be certain are just being presumptuous.

AI and AGI are broad umbrella terms. Stuff like Alpha Zero is AI but not AGI while LLMs are both.

Engaging in semantic battles to try to change the meanings of those terms is just going to create more confusion, not less. Instead why not use more specific and descriptive labels to be clear about what you are saying.

Self-Aware AGI, Human Level AGI, Super-Human ANI, are all much more useful than trying to force general label to be used a specific way.

AI has had many, many lay meanings over the years. Simplistic decision trees and heuristics for video games is called AI. It is a loose term and trying to apply it with semantic rigour is useless, as is trying to tell people that it should only be used to match one of its many meanings.

If you want some semantic rigour use more specific terms like AGI, human equivalent AGI, super human AGI, exponentially self improving AGI, etc. Even those labels lack rigour, but at least they are less ambiguous.

LLMs are pretty clearly AI and AGI under commonly understood, lay definitions. LLMs are not human level AGI and perhaps will never be by themselves.

Alpha Zero is not trying to be AGI.

> The premise that an AI needs to do Y "as we do" to be good at X because humans use Y to be good at X needs closer examination.

I don't see it being used as a premise. It see it as speculation that is trying to understand why this type of AI underperforms at certain types of tasks. Y may not be necessary to do X well, but if a system is doing X poorly and the difference between that system and another system seems to be Y, it's worth exploring if adding Y would improve the performance.

If you stereotype the people who disagree with you, you'll have a very hard time understanding their actual arguments.

> When the benchmark changes, you should ask 'why.'

The article goes into detail about why the poverty line changed. You must have skimmed past the secrion titled "How the World Bank sets the International Poverty Line".

The TLDR; is that it is at root based on the median poverty line set by the government of very poor countries (which is calculated in a complex way that is explained in footnotes and cited articles.)

At root, it isn't NGOs that caused the number to change, but it was inderectly caused by changes in how poor countries measure poverty themselves.

>Facebook did not make a conscious decision to process this data.

Yes, it did. When Facebook built the system and allowed external entities to feed it unvetted information without human oversight, that was a choice to process this data.

> without any attempt to prevent it is a flawed argument, as there are many controls, many disclosures, and (I'm sure) many internal teams and systems designed exactly for the purpose of determining whether the data they receive is has the appropriate consents

This seems like a giant assumption to make without evidence. Given the past bad behavior from Meta, they do not deserve this benefit of the doubt.

If those systems exist, they clearly failed to actually work. However, the court documents indicate that Facebook didn't build out systems to check if stuff is health data until afterwards.

> I see the current situation a weakening of copyright law, a massive one. And not for the average joe, but instead for the most commercial of entities.

You gonna have to explain this in more detail because it isn't clear to me how you justify this claim. What exactly is being weakened? In what way?

> Some of these companies have downloaded torrents. If a person did what they did, they'd receive billions in fines!!

The one I am assuming you are referring to is Meta, and they are getting sued. They arguably should also be facing criminal charges too under current law.

> Yet they're getting a lesser outcome, as in freaking nothing.

That court case hasn't finished and that doesn't have anything directly to do with LLMs but with our legal system and power/wealth imbalances.

> And of course, there'd be no GPL without copyright law.

I personally strongly prefer MIT to GPL. GPL sort of makes sense as a reaction to copyright law but I don't think GPL justifies the existence or state of copyright law.

> Further, I support sliding scales too.

What does that mean? Just the fines / judgements because along with having to pay, the activity itself must be stopped.

If copyright only prohibited larger entities from copying, it would be less onerous and would make copyright more tolerable, but I don't think that would solve the AI training issue in any way and seems like a tangent.

> an entity scanning all of humankind's knowledge and laughing in our faces.

Knowledge is not copyrightable. If you want to stop this, expanding the power of copyright to make learning/knowing something an infinging activity is one of the worst possible ways to go about it.

> 1. Anything that already exists, the universe is able to construct

I didn't claim it is possible we couldn't build meat brains. I claimed it is possible that equivalent or better performance might only be obtainable by meats brains.

> 2. There is no "magic". Anything that happens ultimately follows the rules of nature, which are observable, and open to understanding and manipulation by humans.

I actually don't believe the last part. There are quite plausibly laws of nature that we can't understand. I think it's actually pretty presumptuous that we will/can eventually understand and master every law of nature.

We've already proven that we can't prove every true thing about natural numbers. I think there might well be limits on what is knowable about our universe (atleast from inside of it.)

> 4. Ergo, while it might be difficult, there is fundamentally no reason to believe that the creation of an intelligent object is outside the capabilities of humans.

I didn't say that I believed that humans can't create intelligent objects. I believe we probably can and depending on how you want to define "intelligence", we already have.

What I said is that it is not a forgone conclusion that we will create "a better therapist, doctor, architect". I think it is pretty likely but not certain.

> other parts of copyright law, at least where I live, view "for profit copying" and "some dude wanting to print out a webpage" entirely different.

I don't know what your jurisdiction is however through treaties, much of how USA copyright law works has been exported to many other countries so it is a reasonable place to base discussion.

In the USA commercial vs. non-commercial is not sufficent to determine if copying violates copyright law. It is one of several factors that is used to determine "fair use" and while it definitely helps, non-commerical use can easily infringe (torrents) and commercial use can be fine (telephone book white pages).

> a judgement that all currently trained LLMs, would be unusable for commercial use

I sure hope not. I don't like or use LLMs but I also don't like copyright law and I hate to see it receive such an expansion of power.

> Because meat isn't magic. Anything that can be computed inside your physical body, can be calculated in an "artificially" constructed replica

That is a big assumption and my doubts aren't based on any soul "magic" but on our historical inability to replicate all kinds of natural mechanisms. Instead we create analogs that work differently. We can't make machines that fly like birds but we can make airplanes that fly faster and carry more. Some of this is due to the limits of artificial construction and some of it is due to the differences in our needs driving the design choices.

Meat isn't magic, but it also isn't silicon.

It's possible that our "meat" architecture depends on a low internal latency, low external latency, quantum effects and/or some other biological quirks that simply can't be replicated directly on silicon based chip architectures.

It's also possible they are chaotic systems that can't be replicated and each artificial human brain would require equivalent levels of experience and training in ways that don't make the any more cheaper or available than humans.

It's also possible we have found some sort of local maximum in cognition and even if we can make an artificial human brain, we can't make it any smarter than we are.

There are some good reasons to think it is plausibly possible, but we are simply too far away from doing it to know for sure whether it can be done. It definitely is not a "forgone conclusion".

> But if they take it, then package it, then make money? That is different

But still, also legal.

You can't copyright a recipe itself, just the fluff around it. It is totally legal for somone to visit a bunch of recipe blogs, copy the recipes, rewrite the descriptions and detailed instructions and then publish that in a book.

The is essentially the same as what LLMs do. So prohibiting this would be a dramatic expansion of the power of copyright.

Personally, I don't use LLMs. I hope there will always be people like me that want to see the original source and verify any knowledge.

I'm actually hopeful that LLM reduction in search traffic will impact the profitability of SEO clickbait referral link garbage sites that now dominate results on many searches. We'll be left with enthusiasts producing content for the joy of nerding out again. Those sites will still have a following of actually interested people and the rest can consume the soulless summaries from the eventually ad infested LLMs.

> If LLM fell to tricks of Elizabet Loftus, we'd say LLM hallucinated.

She's strongly oversold how and when false memories can be created. She testified in defense of Ghislaine Maxwell at her 2021 trial that financial incentives can create false memories and only later admitted that there were no studies to back this up when directly questioned.

She's spent a career over-generalizing data about implanting false minor memories to make money discrediting victims' traumatic memories and defend abusers.

You conflate "hallucination" with "imagination" but the former has much more in common with lieing than it does with imagining.

> I think your concerns are legit, but it's not necessarily the reviewer's fault that they're on three deadlines and don't have the time to give your product the care and concern it deserves. It's probably the editor's or the publisher's.

You wrote it, you don't get to dodge the responsibility like that. Professional integrity still matters.

> It's like when I was reviewing albums for $50 a pop: I'd get a stack of them to review and cue up track one and if I didn't get hooked pretty quick, I'd just pop in the next one.

That seems unethical.

> There's a reason I'd rather make a living as a mediocre coder than a very good writer these days

As coders, we also have an ethical responsibility to pushback against code that will harm people.

We need more writers to say no to writing stories with insufficient time/resources to do it ethically same as we need more developers who push back against building unethical products.

> Ultimately, you shipped a broken product.

They shipped a working product that failed after several months, was covered under warranty and also repairavle at home (which the review doesn't even mention.)

> It is perfectly fair for a reviewer to point out their personal preferences on something like this.

But that isn't what happened. The product was included as "not recommended" not just "this wasn't my favorite due to X but would be good for this type of person".

They make up a category to list every other unit as "best for" but decided that nobody should want to buy this one because the Author got annoyed.

The review is poorly written and doesn't do a good job of actually comparing units. It is the kind of review article that mostly fluff with very few details about actual differences revealed during testing that I have learned to ignore when looking for information about what to buy.

This seems like a big assumption to make since that isn't the reasoning presented in the review.

> I understand why I need to check a dashboard for an outdoor air quality monitor, but having to check a dashboard for an indoor monitor seemed like an extra unnecessary step.

This is after already mentioning the unit also has led light bars to display quality without reading the number.

The reviewer seems to be saying that just lights and a web dashboard isn't enough for and indoor monitor.

Yet earlier in the article the Author picked the "Touch Indoor" as the unit with the best display, even though that is an indoor unit with no screen and only led lights.

Given that, you'd think the AirGradient unit's lights would be compared to say why they are worse, but that doesn't happen.

Having read the wired reviews, they set off my internal alarms for "low quality reviewer" who doesn't display a deep understanding of the products being reviewed or the market segment. There's a lot of fluff and stuff about screen size and very little digging into which actual accuracy and functionality.

That said, I haven't seen any good reviews from wired in a log time.

I guess you didn't tead the review, because that isn't what happened

> After using the monitor for a few months, the display began to fall apart into unreadable characters.