swid

I saw the giraffe less than a year ago at Maker Faire, so they have kept it working.

If I am testing something I believe works and is ready, prior to testing, I will tell you it is almost ready.

Then if we test it and it fails acceptance testing, I might learn there is a problem that takes some time to fix.

I did not arrive at a biased decision; I had priors that I used to make an estimation, which turned out to misleading.

The judge is exactly this case. They guess the time it will take to rule; it doesn’t have to mean their eventual ruling is biased.

I could have sworn I have seen this in the past, but I am not sure exactly where. Thinking about it; it probably would have been part of OIDC and not directly addressed by OAuth... maybe someone can find it for me, or maybe I misspoke when I said it was part of the spec.

According to spec, when someone uses oauth to try and log into an existing account for the first time, you must require the user to login through their normal method and then prompt them to link the login account.

However, the identity provider cannot force you to do that, and there are many examples of apps which do not follow this part of the spec.

Are you questioning if physics is computable? Even if it is not fully, we must be able to approximate it quite well.

Suppose we scan more than just the person, but a local environment around them and simulated the whole box.

The update that occurs as the person sits in the room involves them considering their own existence. Maybe they create art about it. If the simulation is to produce accurate results, they will need to feel alive to themselves.

We agree we can simulate an explosion and get accurate results; if we can’t get an accurate simulation of a person, why?

The LLM teaches itself the rules of the simulation by learning to predict what happens next so well.

Presumable, running a human simulation by brute forcing physics at a scale large enough to represent a human is completely infeasible, but we can maybe conceive how it would work. LLMs are an impressive engine for predicting “next” that is actually computationally feasible.

But I am saying that is the wrong comparison. The LLM doesn’t need to implement a human brain directly. It needs to implement a sophisticated enough simulation of people that the simulation itself contains ”people” who believe in themselves.

I don’t know LLMs do that, but they are excellent function approximators, and the laws of physics which allow for my brain to be conscious also can be considered some function to approximate. If the LLM can approximate that function well enough, then simulated humans would truly believe in their own existence, as I do.

And it isn’t really important whether or not consciousness is part of the simulation or not, if the end result is the simulator is capable of emulating people to a greater extent.

I disagree on the premise that computers are able to simulate many different things; it would be just as easy to say that the universe cannot have curiosity; that the universe is just things playing out according to some preset rules.

But of course, people exist within the universe, and while our brains do function according to those rules; likely all rules that can be expressed with math and statistics; we do have curiosity. You can look at the level of abstraction of the universe, and you will not find subjective experience or choice, yet the “platform” of the universe demonstrably allows for that.

When I see arguments like yours and the parent’s, I cannot help but think the arguments would seem to apply just as well to an accurate simulation of the universe, which shows the argument must be flawed. You are a file in the universe, loaded into memory and being run in parallel with my file. If you believe physics can be expressed through math and humans have subjective experienced, then the right kind of simulation can also have these things. Of course any simulation can be represented digitally and saved to disk.

You are right the period would line up with the issue we saw.

But also, I can’t help but to think even /\w+\.twitter\.com/ will match unexpected domains like foo.twitter.com.evil.ai. I already gave you the hint it needs to be anchored!

Don't take this as a defense of what is a harebrained idea; but this kind of replacement should be easy to do correctly. You know; in such a way where only real twitter.com links are changed to x.com.

Honestly it is only somewhat surprising to me that no one noticed the error ahead of time. On the one hand, this is the type of mistake I do see in reviews from time to time... usually in the form of a regex that is not anchored to the start of the string, or perhaps it uses a non escaped period which of course means "any character" in regex. On the other hand, it is revealing about the kinds of controls in place that it got through.

Good luck distributing gains justly when the masses have nothing of value to bargain with. Politics will likely continue to be co-opted by people who can pay; either directly or through other means of coercion.

There used to be a lot more horses… I’m finding 25 million in the US in 1920 compared with 3.8 million today. Of course, they can no longer occupy the niche in society they used to, and so like in nature; when the niche is removed; they can’t just find some other way to be productive or even survive. I don’t think we are so different. Based on the past, I think it’s dangerous to believe some few will keep the rest of us around. Dangerous, because unlike horses, this will cause significant unrest, and ultimately we can’t predict the outcome. My guess is ultimately, with fewer jobs, there will eventually be less people, for better or worse.

The text near the box makes it sound like these are just the fixes - not adding the test files but updating them.

At that point it would have been clear “the race is on” to avoid detection, so it’s not too surprising someone would work late to salvage the operation.

Replayability means something different in this context. First, we do know the backdoor will pass the payload to system, so in general it is like an attacker has access to bash, presumably as root since it is sshd.

Replayability means, if someone were to catch a payload in action which did use the exploit, you can’t resend the attacker’s data and have it work. It might contain something like a date or other data specific only to the context it came from. This makes a recorded attack less helpful for developing a test… since you can’t replay it.

You can imagine a door that opens if you knock on it just right. For anyone without the secret knock, it appears and functions as a wall. Without the secret knock, there might not even be a way to prove it opens at all.

This is sort of the situation here. xz tries to decode some data before it does anything shady; since it is asymmetric; it can do the decryption without providing the secret encryption key (it has the public counterpart).

The exploit code may never be available, because it is not practical to find the secret key, and it doesn't do anything obviously different if the payload doesn't decrypt successfully. The only way to produce the exploit code would be if the secret key is found somehow; and the only real way for that to happen would be for the people who developed the backdoor to leak it.

Part of the issue with higher fps is that it should be balanced with a shorter frame exposure time, so motion blur matches the frame rate. The rule of thumb is shutter speed should be 2x the fps, so shoot at 30fps, you want the shutter around 1/60s, if you shoot at 60fps, you should use 1/120.

This means anything that adds or remove frames is going to quickly cause the motion to look unnatural or at least different from the original.

The second paragraph of the article says they are lizards; specifically calling out it is not a mammal.

  the colossal air-breathing creature wasn't a mammal despite its warm-blood. Nor was it a crocodile despite its similar shaped head. Instead it belonged to a group of now extinct marine lizards

YouTube is probably more addictive than gambling, and it’s pretty clear and accepted some minority of people get addicted to that.

If the AI can distinguish between good and bad reasoning, it can select training material that has a higher average than than the corpus. If it can output data that covers the range, it can generate its own data to bootstrap higher functioning models (like alpha go playing against itself to achieve superhuman go playing skills).

I also don’t think you need to remove the dumb comments from the training material anyway. The AI could be able to simulate either someone of 80 IQ or 180 IQ, producing output consistent with both personas.

That’s the title I shorted it to and my mistake, the STAT title actually says “They carry a gene for ALS but aren’t sick.”

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

I guess I used the term inappropriately since the other commenter picked up on it as well, but I did compare it to deciding what to take a picture of as opposed to editing something written. There is some decision making and we don’t award the copyright to the architect or camera, but the photographer.

My understanding is the ruling actually says the copyright cannot be granted to the AI. But that might not mean a human cannot claim copyright for AI art.

Assuming the AI has a vast number of outputs, many which are uninteresting; a human can select a few outputs as being worthy of being called art or suitable for their purposes.

So an AI can create an image, but the process of selection constitutes an editorial process, and a person can the claim copyright for images they generate and choose to distribute.

This seems to be somewhat similar to copyrighting a found object as art, or taking a photo of a building and owning the copyright to that. It would not make sense to give the copyright to the camera, which is what this ruling confirms.

It’s a poor way of phrasing things, but think like this - there are certain physical inputs to the economy. Ores, power, water, stuff like that. That stuff is processed into stuff of greater value, and that adds value to the economy. We can also increase the value by extracting more raw inputs.

So let’s say the economy is growing exponentially, some percentage per year. Either we keep using more raw inputs, or we keep increasing the value of those inputs. That is where the 2% growth comes from.

If we don’t add new inputs, and exponential growth continues, the outputs will grow to such great value that the raw materials are relatively worthless. But that seems wrong to me - if the physical materials are worthless, someone could buy them all and corner the market and charge whatever they want. It can only happen if scarcity is completely eliminated.

Cruise released a statement which said the car did hear the siren when it was louder than background noise. No indication how close the siren was for that to happen, but it sounds pretty definitive that audio sensors are already part of the kit.

Falcon Heavy is capable of going to the Moon or even Mars.

In nature, often the only missing element is a spark. People who don’t respect that situation and take precautions deserve all the blame they get.

This explanation infers a hidden variable, which is not how quantum entanglement works.

IE - it sounds like the damage occurs at the time of impact, and you just decided to look at a later point in time. But that isn’t what happens with quantum entangled particles. The particles will have opposite spin when the entangled state collapses, but measurement will affect the angle of the spin in a way that proves spin is not preselected when the particles were initially entangled and local to one another.

In your story, looking at your own car would have an observable effect on the entangled car, even though it is far away. But you also cannot even tell it was entangled with the other car without comparing the two over more traditional channels!

Edit: Since a graphic was requested, I found this image hosted by JPL, which shows a related phenomenon (quantum teleportation) to what I described, and hopefully dispels the car crash explanation which doesn’t imply “spooky action at a distance”.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/researchers-advance-quantum-te...

I googled whether or not universal function approximators, which neural nets are considered, are also considered Turing complete. It seems the general consensus is kind of not, since they are continuous and can’t do discreet operations in the same way.

But also, that isn’t quite the whole story, since they can be arbitrarily precise in their approximation. Here[0] is a white paper addressing this issue which concludes attention networks are Turing complete.

0: https://jmlr.org/papers/volume22/20-302/20-302.pdf

If anyone is looking for a different website to help with these kinds of choices, I’ve used https://www.logicalincrements.com many times over the years and have been happy with the recommendations there.