venv

They mean 125um = sqrt(a*b), where a is the Planck length* and b the size of the observable universe (I didn't verify). Implying, 125um is some sort of middle ground. *Often said to be the smallest length with physical meaning.

And PBS is Czech, to name one.

Until the cardiac arrest.

No, they are used in some classes of ocean passage races. IMOCA 60 is one such class.

Depending on your requirements for uptime, you could have a stand-by machine ready or you spin up a new one from backups.

Piketty's book (Capital in the Twenty-First Century) is most definitely not a fad. It is a result of serious research into historical economic data and anyone intellectually honest ought take it seriously. As anything in the social science of economics, it is subject to debate, but to call it a 'fad' is odd, to put it mildly.

Out of protein or fats.

In our current understanding of the world (quantum mechanics), the world is inherently probabilistic ("random", not deterministic) in the microscopic realm. There are differing opinions among physicists whether or not there could be a more fundamental layer of reality beyond this, and if so, whether it would be deterministic. Notably it could be said the mainstream view is that reality is not deterministic.

Whatsapp's in-app notification regarding the TOS change references an EU ruling, so this is the likely cause.

And would the drivers be paid more or less (and what of other conditions)?

GP said it was proof of power. Power can be used for good or ill.

Developers?

I mean, who drives 1200km in day anyway? But it is doable with todays EVs, many of which have ranges of around 500km or more, and only need a couple of hours of charging to drive 1200km (after starting with full capacity), during breaks you would mostly take anyways. Teslas, VW's ID.4, Hyundai's Kona electric and many more come to mind. Cheers for Toyota's research, though.

Alternatively, run the dashboard script via SSH to get the output ($ ssh "host" "command").

If someone consumes what you call useless content, why would they use AI to produce anything else? It's not as if there isn't useful content around, already.

Maybe, but it would still be better if the situation didn't detoriate further.

What you are describing, is not replication.

Even this would require somehow verifying the raw data. It's plausible a bad actor could "reverse engineer" their data from a pre-determined conclusion.

But yes, overall more openness is good. Still, the cost losing trust in society is very high (as you need to verify everything).

Sorry, but you have a logical fallacy there (affirming the consequent). It does not follow, that humans and LLMs have all same properties, even if they have one same property. ("sentient being is text predictor" does not follow from "text predictor is sentient being").

Plenty of laws governing knives...

It will explain anything immediately. Correctly, not necessarily. Did you check the explanation holds water? Seems like it's back to googling anyhow.

Well, not because of emphasizing, but because of there being a viable mechanism in the human case (reasoning being, one can only know that oneself has qualia, but since those likely arise in the brain, and other humans have similar brains, most likely they have similar qualia). For more reading see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

It is important to note, that neural networks and brains are very different.

Absolutely this, well put. I guess enough people misunderstand AI models to the point of treating them like they are not software. I guess this validates Clarke's third law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic).

Is this important?

Well yes, it's the whole crux of the matter. Laws govern human behaviour. As of 2023, only living beings have agency. If I shoot someone with a gun, the criminal is me and not the gun. Being a deterministic piece of silicon, a computer is perfectly equivalent. Sure, it is important to start a discussion of potential nonhuman sentience in the future, but these AI models are not unlike any previous software in legal issues. It's bizarre to me how many people are missing this.

If you are actually being serious, I would caution others from following your example. Houses usually require a certain indoor temperature to prevent problems from moisture buildup in the structure (walls etc).

I suppose the productivity improvement comes from not having to wait for those same lines from a colleague?

On the other hand, all kinds of technology have been regulated to minimize adverse effects. The trouble with software is that it is evolving faster than regulators can keep track of, and it is very hard to police even if regulated.

That would just lead to an AI that makes better abstracts á la GAN.

Are pipettes or vials scientists? Computers are tools like hammers, and have equal agency. There are no nonhuman scientists.