I don't understand the controversy at the heart of this post. H1 stated they don't use reports to train LLMs. Then they revealed they were using LLMs to triage reports based on previous reports. These two facts are not necessarily incompatible. It's entirely possible to use an LLM with a db tool installed to triage reports without using the body of the reports as training fodder. The article doesn't give any evidence that this was not the case. It sounds to me more like the OP already disliked H1 (for its sales practices and general enshittification) and the LLM issue was a convenient excuse to make a clean break.
How long has it been since you've gone a single day without a screen? I don't have a miracle cure, just a suggestion to try going without for a day and see how you feel. Similar to how a pile of work in the corner can make you feel bad until you finally do it. The ratio of suffering time to cure time in both cases is very high.
There exist problems which cause years of suffering which can be solved in hours (sometimes minutes). Not every problem is like that, of course, but some are. Procrastination is like that, sometimes posture is like that, and mental effects of social media are like that. At least for now - this may get worse with time. But the solution is not to consume more content - books seem to be a common suggestion. It is to consume no content. Humans evolved to grind most of the time with a little excitement and entertainment now and again, but tech has inverted this. Its "what we want" in the same way a child wants sugar all the time, and its at once addictive and unhealthy. The screen is an insidious habit former and I'm not sure yet if there is any healthy level or use for some people.
>I agree, but how does one begin to enforce a ban like this?
Look to something that works to modify behavior: credit reports. Make it easy to report an actor for malfeasance, assume they are guilty until proven innocent, and force them to defend themselves to the agency. Since we invent these tools for evil, we may as well use them for good.
I think it said something very meaningful and actionable (admittedly at a high level) about keeping the hot path deterministic: low allocations (including guidelines for GC frequency targets), don't use vthreads (instead use one thread on a pcore that never sleeps, to avoid amdahl), caution about techiques that work at p99 and fail at 99.999... This is not typical for "enterprise" Java, and is an interesting article for those who wish their systems were more deterministic (but may not be aware of the techniques or their cost). This is not a "how to", but that's fine. It's still good content.
You don't need to make libraries illegal to get rid of them, you just need to undermine their value and they'll be defunded and disappear. No passing laws necessary, just pubic ambivalence.
What disginguishes Dostoevsky is his attention to detail and this unusual ability to describe someone inside and out with a voice that finds some sort of intrinsic fascination with the person no matter how dark, dingy, flawed, or just plain strange they are. It's like he withholds judgement without being clinical. His writing is peppered with these sketches, filled with insight, and it's not just a still-life - he manages to weave in these character studies with action and interaction. Most of us look out and see a lawn, boring and inert. He looks out and sees a lawn comprised of individual blades of grass, growing in soil of a specific kind, some weeds, cut some time ago, insects striving and fighting and dying and reproducing, the effects of weather and sun and shade making microclimates from which whole communities of life escape from or to....if there is anything to learn from him it is his gorgeous attention to details that we know are there but have long since ceased bothering to note.
It won't be rejected. Your resume will be meticulously placed into a human review queue pending the allocation of someone to look at the contents. Meanwhile the position will be filled, and so serving no purpose the review queue will be emptied.
Actual price $100k and everything is very closed and proprietary. Oddly this MSI system provides "only" 252G vram and 500G ram. I would have expected more vram for this price. Also why 252 instead of 256? https://www.centralcomputer.com/msi-xpertstation-ws300-ai-wo...
Add "in their living room" and the answer is low. But is it a good experience to game in the living room, on the couch? To me that's an open question that is (sadly) very expensive to answer.
Most people don't know if they'll like the living-room PC gaming experience and at this price not enough people will even try. That's sad to me. It could be that with the right hardware and software the experience would be even better than a console, and if that happens then all the other good features of the Steam Machine (it's relative openness, the fact that you own it, etc) could shine. But without proving that people really like the experience, the rest is irrelevant, and lots of early adopters were just priced out of the experiment.
I like this idea but I get the sinking feeling GA proponents don't really solve problems with GA. Like how Haskell advocates don't write programs and modular synth enthusiasts don't write music.
I agree but you and I aren't the audience and I think experts in general should be a little more holistic when critiquing other people's choices. For any given problem there always exists a perspective from which your solution is over-engineered. People who (like us, I presume) understand processes, files, the command line, compilers, a computer language or two, a bit about computation theory (e.g. Turing, big-O, Knuth..) can get to a very broad swath of places along many different (often shorter!) paths. This is not where most people are starting from.
Speaking of Knuth, imagine being asked to "write a program to add two numbers" and using something like Python instead of assembler, or because really that's complex too, machine code. Do you think that the amount of housekeeping and computer activity is justified for adding two numbers? Objectively, it is not, its just that steady-state dominates the transient over time.
The message you just wrote involved how many complex systems, from your keyboard switches and firmware to your BIOS and OS interrupts, to your browser, the internet and middle boxes, just to say one sentence to someone. It would be much simpler (and more secure!) if you just told me with your mouth, but you didn't do that.
Simpler doesn't mean easier. Consider a chef who at their previous job started using a wood-burning stove. This is an objectively simpler tool than a gas or electric stove, yet it would be very difficult (even impossible, depending on local architecture and regulations) for a new kitchen to add one.
There is an analogy to be made between the space of human possibility and the space of possible Turing machines: in an unconstrained machine everything is possible and nothing is probable. If you accept constraints (e.g. the shape of a language) then most things become impossible but some things become probable. That is you gain access to some space and lose access to other space. It's a very fundamental trade-off and it's foolish to worry about it too much, especially considering that there is always some level of zoom where every hero, every winner of every game, is irrelevant.
Indeed the underlying insight that our lives are arbitrarily small and irrelevant, (yes, even the greatest titans of politics, tech, science and art), that drives the tech-elite long-now accelerationist ideal. Every life is characterized by [trade-offs + luck] and none of them have any meaning unless we get through the Great Filter. (Sure, this belief is mostly a post hoc rationalization to just do what you wanted in the first place, but I appreciate the attempt to paper over the naked self-interest.)
Over forty _thousand_ people die every year in the US from car accidents. Plenty of other preventable injustices happen in all areas of life. I wonder how many fathers are unjustly taken away from their children by a corrupt family court system, how many people die of treatable diseases denied treatment by insurance companies, how many kids lose interest in school because of bad teachers, how many customer service workers endure daily abuse because they need the job.
It's not that the breach isn't bad, or that Meta is a sympathetic company. It's bad and they're not. I just find it hard to feel outraged about this particular incident affected 1 out of every 10k users of a social media site when we live in a world with citizen's united, qualified immunity, and $300 insulin.
No fan of Meta, but I think "staggering" is properly determined by the percent of users affected rather than the absolute number. It's staggering to an SMB with 100k customers; it's bad, but not "staggering" to an internet juggernaught with 3B MAU.
That's a very interesting reading! It's been a while since I read it, but IIRC Watts explicitly talks about the matter of intelligence vs consciousness at length and Rorschach's lack of consciousness is essentially proven at some point by the linguist. The distinction is driven home subjectively, personally by the viewpoint character. Your reading adds a rather diabolical twist! I don't think it works though since Rorschach was clearly a tiny part of a much larger, more powerful entity and the humans are clearly doomed. I'm not sure it serves a narrative purpose to have humans be a weak, evil civilization destroyed as a side-effect of a good, strong civilization's actions. I read it as a (hopeless) conflict between non-conscious, infinitely strong aliens vs conscious weak humans and post-humans. I mean it took extreme, heroic effort to damage what is probably a tiny appendage of a much larger civilization/organism, and you lose the emotional resonance if humans are the baddies.
The point is valid regardless of whether you judge LLM to be sentient or not, because the point is to say "don't let your prejudice about substrate bias your decision". Or in other words, if you're going to weigh something don't tip the scale. This is good advice whatever the outcome of the measurement.
Blindsight is a remarkable book - I hope you enjoy it!
I read your comment as criticizing the OP's story as pointless and unoriginal. My comment elucidated the point of the original story, and what I think is the point of the second story.
We humans tend to chauvinism in all things (e.g. we're special, the center of the Universe, God made the universe for us, etc), no less when it comes to judging intelligence. The original story about thinking meat was written to help us out of our chauvinism; this derived story was written about weights for the same reason. Which is quite valid.
The actual counterpoint is demonstrated in _Blindsight_ Peter Watts. He makes a strong (and rather terrifyingly strong) point that intelligence is not consciousness.
Not necessarily if you've got a curved ultra-wide display. Combine this with some rotation factor and you can look around while still looking at the screen.