orly01

I've heard you are not forced to connect to wifi, and on most of them you can connect make it default certain HDMI input. Latency to turn on/off might be less good than the 2010 one, but other than that this might be a very good way to do it.

It doesn't look like the second has been cut off to get the first, because the font is different. It looks like the second was an attempt to extend the first (also, it kills the joke)

Nice experiment.

Some feedback:

I could not catch that the circle meant the sun. I did catch seconds, minutes, day, month, and I deduced TK meant Tokyo and SF meant San Francisco and could not deduce the city ZG represents. So, I don' think you can actually be free of baggage. Some minor things bugging me: - The lines at the bottom don't align! Really annoying, I spent a lot of time trying to understand it meant something or not. - Dark mode shows only 1 city. I could not understand what TK meant until I saw SF.

Some advice:

- Change the pictoric representation of the sun for something a bit more "sunny". Some flames feel like something not cultural (since there literally is solar activity at the surface), so aliens could get that it is the sun. - In the intro you say there is a puzzle, but you don't say what the puzzle is. I thought it might be some interactive thing. It was only until I gave up I start reading the explanation and got that the puzzle is to understand how the clock works, given it has no cultural baggage. Then I went back to try to understand it. Maybe add a little explanation somewhere saying the intention.

YDRC

My whole point is that it maybe possible to do perception using a lot of computational power, or alternatively, there could be another kind of smart ideas that allows to do it in a diferent way with much less computation. It is not clear it requires it.

Why should it have to be expensive computationally? How do brains do it with such a low amount of energy? I think catching the brain abilities even of a bug might be very hard, but that does not mean that there isn't a way to do it with little computational power. It requires having the correct structures/models/algorithms or whatever is the precise jargon.

Wow. Sounds pretty impressive.

What does it mean that each model is allowed 2000 tokens to generate its clock?

I don't know much about this, but I understand Project Jupyter is Nonprofit. If I go to "jupyter.org" I see a tab "Community" and another "Governance". If I go to "deepnote.com" I see "Customers" and "Pricing".

Why would people want a standard to be controlled by a private company? I don't think the "Open-Sourcing" of it says enough. How does licensing work with formats or standards?

I didn't expect it to be about literally seeing.

Yes, monkeys could write Shakespeare works given enough time.

But in this case, it is really hard to know if a model is identifying "correct answers" reliably. A lot of answers are really hard to qualify as correct or not when written by humans, much more when written by a machine trying to trick readers into thinking the answer is correct. It can be done, but I doubt LLM are being trained to identify the subtle differences between those types of potential answers.

I agree with most of what you said. However it is not correct to say they are executing algorithms, just as it is not correct to say that a water fountain is executing an algorithm.

I agree that the metaphor is good. The point is understood. However, the specific clothes that are considered OK in one context ore another are always changing and based in criteria that most of the time makes no sense.

Yep, that's why I said either that, or they are incompetent.

Not caring at all about false positives, which by the way are very common, enters the category of incompetence for me.

But the moderator AI does not need to understand the meme. Ideally, it should only care about texts violating the law.

I don't think you need to improve that much current LLM so they can detect actual harm threats or hate speech from any other type of communication. And I think those should be the only sort of banned speech.

And if facebook wants to impose additional censorship rules, then it should at least clearly list them, and make the moderator AI explain what are the violated rules, and give the possibility to appeal in case it is doing wrong.

Any other type of bot moderation should be unacceptable.

I agree with you, no way a human reviewed it.

But this implies that people at facebook believe so much in their AI that there is no way at all to appeal what it does to a human eventually. Not even for doing learning reinforcement they have human people to review eventually some post that a person keep saying the AI is flagging incorrectly.

Either they trust too much in the AI or they are incompetent.

p2p?

For now, all we know is this technology replaces the human capacity of drawing with good technique what a human wanted to be drawn. I think the relevant part of art is not the ability of generating an image, but to put thought on what you want to be there.

If unreal decides to abandon all older versions support and development, to just focus on something new that requires payment, I don't think you can keep fixing or updating the old unsupported code, even if you have the source