thfuran

If AI is better at being (or simulating; I think the distinction is irrelevant in this context) curious, better at examining that curiosity, better at pursuing it to discovery, better at applying the discoveries, better at sharing the discoveries, and able to push the frontier of knowledge (if that’s even the right word) literally beyond human comprehension in every domain, what usefulness exactly is left? Or are you just implicitly saying you don’t believe AI will ever get all that superhuman?

Plus interest

And it’s my understanding that, auditory vs visual processing aside, studies demonstrate that the brain activation is essentially identical between reading a book and listening to it.

Git is the one treating code like a text file instead of code.

As always, the relevance of any given benchmark depends on how similar what it’s testing is to your workload.

Sure, but we didn’t go from physical media to online delivery of outright purchased digital goods. We overwhelmingly transitioned to subscription streaming or “purchasing” revocably licensed copies with no guarantee of future delivery and drm on any downloaded copy.

Any service or product delivered at a loss seems pretty plainly anti-competetive. Whether it is actually subsidized to that extent, I’m not sure.

I would argue that it is likely fraudulent to sell with the intent to later reappropriate but separately illegal to actually do so. It’s some manner of theft or destruction of property.

I’m not nearly so optimistic. I think we have a generation of kids now who mostly never owned any physical media, having grown up with Netflix instead of vhs/dvd, Spotify instead of CDs, steam instead of retail games, etc.

Yes AI scrapers can easily spoof user-agent, but they fall out of date as the browser updates.

It’s a hell of a lot easier for a company to ensure that its scrapers all report the latest user agent string than it is to get everyone and their mother to update their browsers in a timely fashion.

I think you're missing the point. A lot of basic mechanics actually isn't especially intuitive because things like work simply do not map well to everyday experience. I'm not suggesting that work is defined incorrectly or something.

Holding that block stationary at arms length then. 0 work.

you're confusing legal ownership with physical ownership and only one can be guaranteed with reasonable certainty.

You mean legal ownership, right? Because people can illegally take your physical belongings.

It's not really a problem. The alternative is to grind it up into fine dust, spray it into the air, and call it "clean coal".

Last time I looked, I couldn't find an OLED commercial display like that.

As a painting enthusiast, I say that's way too many. One should be enough for at least a few minutes.

Those are not separate things.

The required radiator for cooling isn’t that much larger than the required solar panel for powering the thing in the first place, and you don’t see everyone saying those are impossible. Is it easier to keep them on the ground? Obviously, but that wasn’t the claim. It just isn’t nearly as hard to cool things in space as a lot of people seem to think.

Radiative heat transfer exists in space. In fact, it works quite well for cooling as long as you’re in the shade.

there are a lot of services which, unfortunately, only allow sign-ups from big, well-known domains.

I have never encountered one.

The goal of this administration has never been effective policy or at least not policy effective at doing things other than self-enrichment and disenfranchisement.

The USG has limited capabilities on technologies from GPS chips

Are you referring to Selective Availability? That ended decades ago.

It's more like dumping a set of binary block data structures from memory to disk.

That sounds exactly like a file format to me. Are you suggesting that json is the only format developers might be aware of?

I don’t think there’s a whole lot of room for improvement there.

The court isn’t stopping them from offering an LLM, it’s saying that serving the output of its LLM is, in this sense, equivalent to serving the output of a human writer they hired. That is, it is Google’s speech and they are directly liable for it, unlike when they’re just serving search results that are somebody else’s speech.

You’re seriously arguing that Google’s libel shouldn’t count as libel because they showed it to too many people? It’s absolutely insane to suggest that a company should be immune from liability for its actions if it operates on such scale that those actions harm millions of people every day on the basis that dealing with that many lawsuits would be too inconvenient.

Your flower guy is probably in league with the Dutch and certainly behind the times.

I heard daffodils are where it's at.

What does that actually mean?

And also not accounting for the other big factor: the probability of getting caught and reaching such a settlement/verdict. If the consequence is a thirty percent chance of paying thirty percent of the gains back in thirty years, malfeasance is just good business, not a credible risk. It needs to be unprofitable and pierce the corporate veil.