hau

The film must be shot where the narrative takes place.

This one really stands out by exculding whole genres and not really adding anything interesting to work around.

This is dangerous terrorist version you are talking about. People can not be trusted with choosing their own conscience, that's how you get terrorists and pedophiles. Remotely attested module is trusted by democratic authority, not using it is basically admiting intention to hurt fellow citizens.

On-board NN moderates all interactions. Moral NN core must be updated montlhy to support latest moral and legal checks by NN. This core reports when you are doing something suspicious. State, municipal, border and patrol random checks for proper attestation of implants. Of course manufacture and installation of such implants is licensed and tightly regulated. Think of children.

It's not very different from smartphone. But now instead of modem you have nn "firmware" with broad capabilities to warn privacy and ethics police when you are out of line. Recording in the wrong place, or looking at a crime and not reporting. "Off mode" won't fly for a gun, and your implant threatens children, so I don't believe this could be delegated to the user.

Demo video shows user asking for a briefing for a board of directors. What's the value of user making such a request? Each board director could ask for a particular thing they require, or a briefing themself, eliminating human intermediary who gatekeeps mouse click for choosing style of a generated text. Considering there is no input from the user into the briefing this interaction is absurd. The tech they show eliminates the need for the actions shown.

Other example is "finding" employees. What's the purpose of a human in the middle? The implied result is contact list for potential employees. Will they write them invitation for the interview by hand?

I'm really confused why is this presented like this. It has this surreal dreamlike quality. Something is done. Emails sent, contacts acquired, profits unlocked, synergy achieved etc.

In 2014.

2014 cybersecurity audit performed by the French Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI) at the museum's request

No Gemini model has ever made a mistake or distorted information. They are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

I generally agree with gp. Checkout with your link says "This item is currently on pre-order" btw. Retail mini-pcs are somehow harder to obtain than general purpose ones.

What really matters is the society where we want to live in. It doesn't matter much what kind of technology allows private entities to reproduce creativity. We can assume these brains are not virtual and are actually organic and more capable than human ones, or that they are magical black boxes.

Since it changes incentives and mechanics of the creativity market so much it forces us to reassess current approaches. I can't agree that mechanism behind this tech and the approach to IP is of any consequence. We don't make laws, norms and judgements for the sake of our tools.

It's ok to say that we're not ready to arrange things in a proper way yet, without letting everything slide on some arbitrary technicality.

Makes sense. There is very little in common between physical theft and unauthorised information copying. It may be an act worse than theft in ethical or other way, but it's a different thing. Crude theft analogy is good to colour it a particular way and evoke emotions, but harmful for a reasonable discussion.

Oh I agree, producing text by llms which is expected to be produced by human is at least deceiving and probably plagiarising. It's also skipping some important work, if we're talking about some person trying to detect it at all, usually in education context.

Student don't have to perform research or study for the given task, they need to acquire an example of text suitable for reproducing their style, text structure, to create an impression of being produced by hand, so the original task could be avoided. You have to have at least one corpus of your own work for this to work, or an adequate substitute. And you still could reject works by their content, but we are specifically talking about llm smell.

I was talking about the task of detecting llm generated text which is incredibly hard if any effort is made, while some people have an impression that it's trivially easy. It leads to unfair outcomes while giving false confidence to e.g. teachers that llms are adequately accounted for.

I don't believe it's possible at all if any effort is made beyond prompting chat-like interfaces to "generate X". Given a hand crafted corpus of text even current llms could produce perfect style transfer for a generated continuation. If someone believes it's trivially easy to detect, then they absolutely have no idea what they are dealing with.

I assume most people would make least amount of effort and simply prompt chat interface to produce some text, such text is rather detectable. I would like to see some experiments even for this type of detection though.

An award worth between 15 and 30 percent of the total proceeds that IRS collects could be paid, if the IRS moves ahead based on the information provided

https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/whistleblower-office-at-a-glan...

It's about safety and having a tomorrow. A lot of places where you won't live long without housing. You could live your whole life without strong connections to other people even if a miserable one.

Not having a major disruption to your whole life beyond your control is a meaningful thing, and a basic need. It could be reliable, predictable, stable source of income or saving, which allows you to rent without such concerns. It could be owning place to sleep, to eat, to invite friends.

They have to protect their trademark at least, it's use it or lose it.

I think you could daisy-chain DisplayPort MST monitors, so that only first one would be connected to your laptop.

Apparently it could be configured to use self-hosted local visionect server.

https://hub.docker.com/r/visionect/visionect-server-v3/

disrespectful to Miura's legacy

You mean highest form of flattery? Literally participating and reflecting, trying to recreate and reinterpret is how humans integrate, show acceptance, make it part of themselves and culture. His art is not sacred, nor is it absolutely original, nor is it made in isolation from the world. Miura's legacy is sharing his reinterpretation of whatever. For it to exist there must be less elitist underground bunkers full of sacred IP which we unable to think about, discuss and share our interpretations of.

I'm comparing it with other platforms, which are usually announce removal beforehand. That's it.

No hate, I simply can understand why paying for youtube feels different from paying for netflix. These are not some bulletprof arguments why nobody should pay money, it's just why I personally can feel it's different than paid content provider/producer.

You're basically restricted to the tastes of Netflix's buyers.

Same as going to the cinema. I don't expect to see 5 minutes of figuring out camera settings and 2 hours of black screen. I completely miss how it's not a feature. At the same time I support variety and experiments with a content of any kind, it's just not that.

You can easily skip these, not sure what the issue is here.

No issue. I use sponsorblock as I mentioned, so no manual intervention required. Why do I have to do it though.

all change their inventory frequently due to licensing. It wasn't long ago that you could watch Sopranos on Amazon.

Did you know they announced removal of Sopranos beforehand? You could make an informed decision given a warning.

it's a problem with the US legal system.

No it's not. But thank you for a perfect counter.

YouTube has created tons of wealth for creators and has cut out tons of the usual Hollywood intermediaries.

Fair enough, there is some service being provided by youtube. They basically made all the content on platform possible.

Additionally, there has never been a greater investment made on storing and distributing video like the one Google made on YouTube.

This wasn't a charity.

This is a problem on all of these platforms, but to a completely different degree.

I feel like you're right about initial value proposition, but it doesn't seem odd to me at all. There are other things about treating youtube as netflix/hbo/hulu:

- I can't upload random video to the netflix, and I have a certain expectation regarding content there

- 99% of videos on youtube are not something I would pay for or expected to be paid for uploading

- I can pay for youtube subscription and would still get a lot of advertisement, because I dared to turn SponsorBlock off. Creators have a very good reason to use this type of ads, and youtube have all responsibility of not providing solutions for this.

- I can pay for HBO max and watch Sopranos. On youtube I can pay and content of interest could be deleted next second

- I have no idea if my favourite creator was demonetised for DMCA spam by youtube, but I certainly know they are not treated as equal partners in this business in many ways.

- Ultimately I pay for content, and subscription guarantees some kind of investment from the platform in acquiring or producing it. Not true for youtube.

edit: not saying one should not pay for youtube, but these points are for comparing youtube with established paid platforms. I believe youtube could offer very interesting and fair subscription schemes and conditions in principle.

Your Mastodon server or your Gitea server or your corner of the Tildeverse or whatever will never appear on their radar

Of course it will when your gitea or mastodon instance is in the right crosshair. Do we just surrender rights on a hope this time we can stay under the radar? If you are not a terrorist or a pedophile you have nothing to worry etc. When you disagree enough you will become a terrorist. That's the reality in my country because it works an have worked for centuries.

Ofcom won't have the budget or the resources to go after individuals or small communities; they won't even know you exist. Ofcom isn't going to audit your homelab for online harms.

Pinky promise?

It's not OK in my opinion to have perfectly capable hardware and software be obsoleted by circumstances outside of your control. I consider it to be wasteful and unnecessary. It don't have to conflict with convinience and services provided by cloud CMS. As we've figured out in other thread this is not an issue with this particular display - apparently, you could make it work without touching external networks, and it's decently supported by Visionect way of doing things.

https://www.visionect.com/shop/place-play-32/

This is a product page I looked at. Hard to interpret "Place & Play devices work on a subscription basis. Select a plan here." near "Add to cart" button.

Hey, thanks. Yeah it seems it could be run just fine without some cloud based third party paid services, and the suite is nice and accessible, that's cool. I am just really confused by Visionect product page I guess.

Thank you. I think their product page is pushing cloud subscription too hard, they call subscription the same way they call display itself, and subscription is paid and cloud based. Product page says: "Place & Play devices work on a subscription basis. Select a plan here.", and "A license is needed for every device." while describing software suite.

I'm still confused about the way it presented, but documentation and suite itself look quite decent.

This screen comes with a subscription based cloud CMS. The only way to pass image to this display semms to be through a proprietary application which is this so called CMS. There are no other connectivity options mentioned.

You are unable to use this screen if:

- subscription is not paid

- company decides to terminate your subscription under any condition of your contract

- company decides to sunset software or a product

- company doesn't exist anymore

- CMS isn't compatible with your device anymore

I don't understand his reasoning behind this point. Previous productivity advancements in history didn't free us, because technology seemingly has little to do with this. Let's say AI will do your job - will you be free from responsibility of daunting task or free from opportunity to afford next rent payment? What's the difference? Why would we spend more time on X if X becomes cheaper? Is there even a single living person who got freedom through his job being automated except automata owners?

I can confirm everything you said about state of IT industry, it matches my experience.

Our team is in process movingto Bulgaria thanks to BESCO (write letter to them right now if Bulgaria is an option for you). We are getting some help acquiring visas fast, but getting tickets out of Russia is harder with every minute (literally). We are leaving all our lives behind and fleeing in shock, hoping one day to be able to return, to help those who couldn't leave.

Stay strong.

Author's biography listed right at the end of the article.