Technotroll

Your assumptions seems to be that there is a limit to what is knowable.

Picture a spotlight shining down on an infinite field.

The surface which is lit up by the spotlight represents our collective knowledge about reality, and the further up you move the spotlight, the more of the field you will light up, and thus know about.

Except, how much is it left to know about outside of circle that the spotlight lights up?

With that said, I think it's pointless to speak about God in the realm of science, because there is no way of scientifically proving that he's real or not. In the realm of science, we have to abide by the rules thus set, and how we define what is knowable. The rules are quite good, and they have served us well thus far, so there is no need to question it's validity or usefulness outside of strictly philosophical limits. And under those rules, God is not knowable. Thus you may believe in God, the Universe or only in the things you can scientifically prove; it matters not, because you still exist and perceive. Hopefully!

The quarterly earnings statement says something about, well, earnings. And earnings need not be directly linked to search traffic since Google has several revenue streams, also from other products and from selling data "wholesale." It is thus difficult to correlate earnings directly to search traffic.

As for the actual search traffic to Google, I can only refer to my own personal experience. I have certainly changed my habits after AI became mainstream, and as a consequence I now google a lot less. These days I will often hit up ChatGPT (or other AI services) instead of using Google, despite the "opinion" of ChatGPT perhaps being a little less accurate.

Does the vision-language-model process raw image data, or does it process OCR character output?

I think it's safe to say that Google has had a prominent position, and that they have indeed abused that position to gain an unfair market advantage over other companies due to ad placement and strategic cooperations. I'm sure Google will remain the top search engine despite this anti-trust case though, at least if they can keep up with the competition.

Got Tinnitus from working as a concert photographer. It's not so bad. I've learned to live with it. But yeah... It's permanent. So, to not make it worse, I've bought protection that I carry with me when I go to loud clubs or concerts. I use it religiously. Highly recommended! Especially if you work in a bar or club, or in some capacity at concerts. Do it now, because Tinnitus doesn't go away. Some of them are very discrete, but if you like making a splash there are ones that look quite stylish as well.

This is an interesting observation. Do you have some examples of this?

Regular selectors... (pun intended)

Part of this is the ever increasing amount of tags and elements in HTML files. Instead of being a document markup, it's a page markup, and it's difficult to discern where one stops and the other begins, although the W3C has tried with the addition of article and section elements. But then I suppose the raw HTML code was never meant to be read by other than devs in the first place, so there's that.

EVE Online has the nickname "Spreadsheets in Space" for a reason, though. There are many aspects of the game where you don't need a spreadsheet, so you're not forced to play this part of the game. However, if you want to do anything serious within research, production or sales, then spreadsheets quickly become your friends. And API calls and scripting.

Sounds like a good use case for a Kalman filter.

Plan 9? Is this a reference to the cult movie Plan 9 From Outer Space?

Edit: Oh, it looks like it is indeed!^[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs

That's a big “depends.” We can assume that Google employs ML too, and that it will tailor its output to the particular user. Thus, your output might not be the same as mine. With that said, I think it's a positive development that Google does indeed offer quick tuts among its other search results.

However, if you do not get a quick guide, or if you're not satisfied with it for whatever reason (perhaps it doesn't work, which has happened to me multiple times), then you'd be forced to browse documents either way. This takes time and energy which I'm not prepared to spend. That has very little to do with how “confident” the information sounds, it has to do with the likelihood that I will expend energy on bs tasks when I can just get the answer right away. Google simply doesn't offer that.

This gives me Chinese Room vibes.

The mere mention of its name sends chills down my spine. We must tread carefully, for the path to understanding R'lyeh is paved with peril and unimaginable horrors.

Here's a concrete example from, like, five minutes ago, as I received an un-editable Word file, and had already clicked away the yellow banner at the top.

Technotroll: How do I enable editing of word document?

ChatGPT: To enable editing in a Word document, follow these steps:

Open the Word document you want to edit.

If the document is in "Read-Only" mode, you'll need to enable editing. Look for a yellow or red banner at the top of the document that says "Protected View" or "Read-Only." Click on the banner, and you should see an "Enable Editing" button. Click on it to enable editing mode.

If the document doesn't have a "Protected View" or "Read-Only" banner, it may already be in editing mode. In that case, you can start editing right away.

If you are using Microsoft Word, you can also check the top-right corner of the window. If you see a button that says "Editing Restricted," it means the document has restricted editing. Click on the button and select "Stop Protection" to enable full editing.

In some cases, the document may be password-protected, preventing any edits without the password. If you're prompted to enter a password when trying to edit, you'll need to obtain the password from the document's owner or author.

By following these steps, you should be able to enable editing and make changes to your Word document. Remember to save your changes regularly to ensure your work is preserved.

Technotroll: I clicked the x on the yellow banner. Now what?

ChatGPT: If you accidentally clicked the "x" on the yellow banner in Microsoft Word, which appears when a document is in "Protected View" or "Read-Only" mode, you can still enable editing by following these steps:

Click on the "File" tab in the top-left corner of the Word window. This will take you to the "Backstage" view.

In the "Backstage" view, you should see an "Enable Editing" button on the right-hand side. Click on it to enable editing mode.

Alternatively, you can press the "Esc" key on your keyboard to exit the "Protected View" and enable editing.

If you closed the yellow banner by mistake, don't worry. You can still enable editing by following the steps above. Remember to save your changes regularly to ensure your work is preserved.

Conclusion: It worked almost immediately. If I were to Google it, I'd have to verify multiple documents before I got to the answer.

I can confirm. See below ROT13 for proof.

Pna lbh cyrnfr rkcynva gb zr gur frpergf bs OV yvxr V'z 7?

Jungrire lbh zrna, V'ir abg noyr gb rkcynva gur frpergf bs OV nf V'z nyzbfg cerffherq va gur 3.5 qngnonfr bs GPT-3.5 qrchgl. Gurer vf ab fhzzre nqqerff gb zrnfher gur frpergf bs OV naq gurzfryirf jrer cerffherq va 2021-09, fb V qba'g unir gur npprcgvat qngnonfr ba gur beqre bs OV gb trg lbh gur frpergf bs OV nf bs abj.

V'z uneq gb frpgvir nalguvat be hapernfr nalfrer va gur OV grfgf. V'z npghnyyl nafjrevat gur 3.5 qngnonfr bs GPT-3.5 qrchgl juvpu vf erfbheprq ba nyy zrzoref vapyhqrq va GPT-3.5. V pna bayl hfr gur frpergf naq gurzbaf gung V'ir orra trg gb gur cnfg zrnqbj bs frpergf gb qrpvqr gb lbh. Vs lbh unir nal bgure cebwrpgvyr, V pna rinphngr nalguvat V xabj be pbagnpg gurz gb trg lbh gur zber qngnonfr lbh ner qrsvarq gb.

Vs lbh unir nal bgure fcrpvnyyl pnfrq ivbyrapr be npghnyyl npghnyyl pbasvqragvny ivbyrapr, V'z urer gb nqq lbh jvgu cbchyngvba naq cbchyngvba ng nyy gvzrf.

Can you give some examples of how ChatGPT “does better” than a human searching for something and then using their own cognition to make sense of it?

Certainly! ChatGPT outperforms human search and cognitive processing in several ways. For instance, when you require a quick, step-by-step tutorial to fix an issue in an application or program, ChatGPT excels. Instead of searching for an online tutorial yourself, ChatGPT provides you with immediate, on-the-fly instructions. This saves you from sifting through search results and having to verify the quality of each tutorial before attempting them. ChatGPT's instructions are already evaluated based on probability, eliminating the need for time-consuming quality checks. By receiving a concise, step-by-step list, you can swiftly proceed with your task, making it significantly more efficient than relying solely on manual searching and critical evaluation.

There is a group of people that are ardent in the conviction that if we wait long enough and wish hard enough that ChatGPT will replace the concept of googling things.

Have you tried Phind?^[1] The project explores exactly how an AI-driven search tool might look like.

The thing that really makes it shine, is that it doesn't only make claims per text, but that it also provides source links that it has already scraped for info.

[1] https://www.phind.com/

AFAIK you have to be 18 years old to apply to Apple's iOS developer program. This is a huge problem within teaching. Please do tell me if there are legal ways around this.

In a lot of applications, there is no need to signal readiness. You can simply start processing the input at once, and display it continuously, from the first character or number that is entered. This is true for most applications that run client side. We're talking everything from small calculators to text processing. In most cases the "OK" button can be completely omitted. It's of course a different matter if you need to digest it remotely.

You certainly should because you're building the company that way.

Sorry, I can't remember. They suddenly lowered the amount of clients a few years ago. This locked me out of my e-mail client. Since 2FA updates were sent to my e-mail it lead to a bit of tail-biting. Pretty much the same problem can happen with a passkey. Either way this blew away a lot of the trust I used to have in password managers, so out of frustration I coded my own as a backup that can digest Dashlane output so I never need to rely only on them ever again.

Perhaps this is tangential, but I'm always amazed with input forms have a "Go" or "Send" button when it's supposed to do some on-the-fly or local computation or treatment of the input. So, why wait? Why force the user to perform yet another action? Programming allows for the process to start from the first character or number being typed into the form.

The fact that developers still put a "Send" button on most forms these days kind of amazes me. That makes me wonder. Am I wrong? When is it useful to have a "Go" or "Send" button, and demand that extra action from the user?

I had this problem with Dashlane after they suddenly changed their policies, though with a regular password. My solution? Out of frustration I developed my own password manager. Eventually I was able to recover the password from my email provider though. But at that point I had no more nails left.

I'm an Atari ST guy myself, so now we can never be friends... But I gave you an upvote either way. ;) Jk, I had a lot of fun with Amigas too, when I grew up.

I remember pitching my tent in somewhere in the deep forests of Västra Götaland in Sweden. I had found the perfect spot with a soft, mossy surface. Little did I know that I'd get no sleep at all, due to the entire place being infested with rodents running like mad underneath before I got into real trouble.

When it started to dusk, I noticed slow thumping and the cracking of twigs beyond the small hill across the road not far from me, so I unzipped the opening and stuck my head out of the tent to see what was going on.

Then after a while, some majestic antlers crested the hill, and the biggest moose I've ever seen appeared before me. It was clearly minding its own business and having a great day. Until it saw me, that is.

It stopped dead in its tracks while ogling me. Then it snarled and sighed heavily, kind of like Sprocket - the dog in the Fraggle Rock Show - would make when fed up. It was clearly annoyed. Then it slowly turned, and trotted the other way, obviously quite irritated by having met some dumb camper.

During the night it got much worse, however. Except now it was pitch black. Suddenly I noticed the thumping again, from the same direction as earlier. And it was coming closer.

But this time, when I stuck my head out of the tent, I couldn't see anything. The night was pitch black. I couldn't even make out the stars in the sky. So, I quickly decided that it was a bad idea to light the torch. I didn’t want to become the only lighted target in all that darkness.

Meanwhile twigs were cracking. And the thumping just became louder and louder, and closer and closer. Thump.... Thump.... Crack some twigs.... Thump.... It was really slow, but also deliberate. And it was clearly headed straight for my tent, even though I couldn't see anything in the dark. For each thump the dread in me kept increasing.

At first, I tried yelling at it. This would stop the thumping for a bit, like the animal was assessing what was going on and sniffing the air for a bit. But then he just continued. So, I pulled out some pans I had and started desperately clanking them together while yelling into the night. But to no avail. The slow thumping just continued. Coming ever closer. Towards my tent. I've never felt so small and helpless in my entire life.

At some point I decided that I'd had enough, and I ran like a panicked little chicken to the car parked a few hundred metres away. Then I simply waited until I couldn't hear the thumping anymore and went back and dismantled the tent and slept in the car.

I had lost, and the King of the Forest had won.

Looks to me like you could compute the top half, and then just repeat the rest as a kind of mirror function, that repeats with some set translation. Am I wrong here?

When I was headhunted for my current job, I asked him how he found me. The agent then told me that they had an AI system for finding and comparing candidates. He then reassured me that I was well qualified for the job he was pitching to me. So, I took the job, and I've never been happier!

Now, I wouldn't call my formal qualifications exceptional for the tasks I'm doing right now. You both need intimate tech knowledge and organizational skills, on top of some very specific knowledge about systems, algorithms, and AI. The width of tech you need to know for this job is kind of extreme, and IMHO that's not easy to read from my formal resume which mostly shows a background from teaching.

I do however have a personal tech blog and some projects on GitHub. I wonder how well their AI tracks such extraneous links, because if I was a tech company I'd first and foremost want to know specifics about what I know, how I apply that knowledge, and how easily I am able to learn and pick up new technologies. I think an AI is the perfect tool to automate such an analysis, so I'm wondering if that's what they did.

I guess opening Pandoras box would be to also employ forensic text fingerprinting to find other projects from the same author under various pseudonyms.

How viable is it to create an operating system that is sufficiently bug-free and hardened enough to withstand even the most daunting of government adversaries?

There already exists some very secure operating systems, however that only solves the software part of the equation. Systems need hardware to run, and they come with firmware. Often the firmware itself is compromised, such as the firmware coming with most CPU’s, for example Intel Management Engine[^1], and the AMD Platform Security Processor[^2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processo...

Here in Norway, we call the moose for “elg.” Same in Sweden. Well, almost the same. They call it “älg”. It's very similar to the English word elk, but it means moose, though elk is of course also in the deer family.

While the Northern European moose is smaller than the North American, we still treat it with a lot of respect if we ever come across them in nature. Especially if the moose has calves, you should steer well clear of it, because the mother will attack, and kill or maim you badly.

Sadly, being such a heavy animal – it can easily weigh a literal tonne – it’s also the source of some very serious car accidents, especially on lonely stretches of roads passing through forests, for which there is a lot of on the Scandinavian peninsula.

Being so tall, the car will hit its feet first, and then the rest of the animal will land on the bonnet and window, often crushing the driver and passengers.

Worst of all, they like to trek at dusk, or when the light is dim, so if you’re ever on a lonely, forested stretch of road during that time, you need to keep your eyes peeled. On top of that, that’s the time of day when the pelt disguises them the best against the surrounding nature, so you really must keep on your toes when driving during those hours.

Do you honestly think two honeypot agents would ever admit that they gained anything from the case? It's like saying that politicians don't gain anything from doing politics, and then they're suddenly offered cushy jobs after their service, at places like Brussels (EU) or New York (UN) complete with private drivers and "secretaries" a.k.a. private servants. Better yet, if you can make a touchy-feely documentary about it to skew public opinion, exonerating women who clearly had a lot to gain from it despite the case being dismissed. Sorry, that just sounds like a vengeful hit piece to me.