webmaven

Furthermore, a bunch of functionality was entirely deleted, and the effect on the quality of discourse has been... Profoundly negative.

The smokers who DON'T get lung cancer still have more heart and lung problems (like emphysema, COPD, etc.), and those get significantly worse late in life.

Hmm. Every time I've been in a similar scenario (breaking a fall, warding off an incoming projectile) it has been my wrists that broke.

Don't forget that the dishwasher also uses less water and the dishes get sterilized by the steam.These features may or may not be important for a particular user.

But doesn't that mean that ranking the ideas to find the ones most worth testing is a useful problem to solve?

If I understand what's been published about this, it isn't just ideation, but also critiquing and ranking them, to select the few most worth pursuing.

Choosing a hypothesis to test is actually a hard problem, and one that a lot of humans do poorly, with significant impact on their subsequent career. From what I have seen as an outsider to academia, many of the people who choose good hypotheses for their dissertation describe it as having been lucky.

For a while, anyway.

People are using these models to generate candidate molecules for specific purposes. According to some estimates I've seen, their hit rate is about 50% instead of 25-33%, and doesn't take two years.

Um. How are you measuring that productivity?

Are the training costs (CapEx) and inference costs (OpEx) being lumped together?

I spent a moment with my brain froze up apparently trying to remember when the first Terminator was supposedly deployed in one of the timelines.

Then I realized the reference was to the "Model T" car. Somehow in my brain the token for "Model" is actually necessary for the correct lookup.

It's written in second-person.

If you're working from the markup rather than the appearance of the page, you're probably increasing the incentives for metacrap, "invisible text spam" and similar tactics.

That's the same thing, the credible "chance to unseat" becomes "motivation to acquire", leading to a much faster and more certain exit.

Of course, that's exactly the pattern of behavior that is seen as problematic.

... which ignores the hazards of pencil shavings in a zero-g environment, especially the graphite, a good electrical conductor.

If by "pirating" you mean distributing copies, probably not. But if you mean downloading copies, probably yes. Consider the case of the film student studying the entire ouevres of multiple directors.

The "U" in UBI is for "Universal". There is no means-testing. Everyone gets it regardless of assets or income, which means there is no need to spend any effort on checking whether someone is "poor enough".

Though the state would have to make sure the person receiving the benefit actually exists, is still alive, etc.

This is HN. The canonical example for that is pg's Viaweb.

An "Editor".

But the site isn't a .com anyway...

What is the top 10% of the Internet that isn't part of some publishing arm of existing media?

Why does that even matter?

It's true that the quantum mechanical influence amounts to randomness, but you're missing that this (weak) randomness is constantly being injected into biological processes and amplified, it isn't a "one and done" random seed. So it isn't true that the consequences of living systems can be modeled and computed deterministically, even in principle. And this is even less true of intelligent systems like brains.

Whether that stochasticity amounts to free will is a separate discussion, but it is fairly clear to me that many of our decisions are consequential and AREN'T predetermined. Which at least sounds like free will, or close enough to warrant being treated as such, anyway.

Obviously this wasn’t Kinko’s official stance. Just one obstinate, over zealous employee.

You might think that's obvious, but you'd be wrong. Software publishers were cracking down on duplicating manuals as a means of trying to curb software piracy.

I can practically guarantee that the "obstinate employee" was given clear direction by their manager on the subject.

Though you do have to keep in mind that depending on when exactly this happened, Kinko's might still have been a collection of hundreds of largely autonomous regional partnerships, each of which could set their own policy.

Even with photo or video AIs, there is no "new" content, just rehashed old content which is a subset of the trained data (why AI-generated photos often have this kind of "smooth" look to them).

You're misattributing the source of that quality. It actually comes from the "aesthetic" human preference fine tuning, because the average person finds "smooth" images more appealing. Prior to that fine-tuning, the models don't have this bias, or no more of it than is in the training data, anyway.

Personally, I find the aesthetic fine-tuning quite annoying (and it has generally been getting worse with each new version of these models). If I prompt for a painting in Picasso's style, I really don't want a "prettier" version of that style that smooths out the textures and shapes to make them more pleasing to the eye.

there's simply no place for free will unless you go down some weird/unfalsifiable rabbit holes like the MWI.

I don't follow. Quantum mechanics means that physics is stochastic, and only approximates classical determinism in aggregate. Meanwhile, brains seem to operate in a critical state that can be tipped to different phase transitions by small perturbations, so there is potential for a quantum event to influence the brain as a whole in a nondeterministic fashion.

This means that strict physicalism still leaves the door open to our behavior being stochastic rather than deterministic, doesn't it?

I showed it a photo of a spaghetti server utensil that had been chewed up by a dog to the point of the handle breaking off, and while it didn't correctly identify the type of damage, the "thought process" was still pretty interesting:

So I have this spaghetti server, you know, one of those tools with a handle and a claw-like end that's supposed to help you scoop pasta out of a pot. It's gray and looks like it's made of some kind of plastic or nylon. But here's the thing: it's broken. The handle has snapped off, and it's lying next to the rest of the tool on the counter. The broken part looks charred or burnt, and there's a hole where the handle broke off. I need to figure out what happened here.

First, I should think about what a spaghetti server is used for. It's primarily for serving pasta, right? You stick the claw end into the pot, twist it, and it grabs some pasta strands, making it easier to lift them out without making a mess. So, it's a handy kitchen tool when it's intact.

Now, looking at the broken pieces, the handle seems to have separated from the main part of the tool. The point of breakage appears to be near the top, close to where the claw starts. The material looks like it might have been exposed to high temperatures, given the charring. Maybe it got too close to a heat source, like a stove flame or hot pots and pans.

I recall that some kitchen utensils are made from heat-resistant materials, but even they have their limits. If subjected to excessively high temperatures, they can melt, deform, or break apart. The charred appearance suggests that this is what happened here.

Let me consider the possible scenarios that could have led to this damage:

Left in a hot oven: If the spaghetti server was accidentally left in the oven while it was on, the heat could have caused the material to degrade and break.

Contact with direct flame: Placing it too close to a gas stove flame or an open fire could have burned the material.

Exposure to very hot surfaces: Setting it on a hot countertop or against a hot pot could have caused the handle to melt or weaken over time.

Age and wear: Over time, kitchen tools can degrade due to frequent use and cleaning, making them more susceptible to breaking under stress.

Given the nature of the breakage, with the charred edges, it's likely that exposure to high temperatures is the primary cause. It doesn't look like it just snapped from being bent or twisted too much; the damage goes beyond that.

I should also consider the material of the spaghetti server. If it's made of nylon, which is common for such utensils, it can withstand moderate heat but not extremely high temperatures. Nylon starts to soften around 200-250 degrees Celsius, and continued exposure to higher temperatures can lead to degradation and breakdown of the material.

On the other hand, if it's made of silicone, it can handle higher temperatures, up to around 260 degrees Celsius before starting to degrade. However, even silicone has its limits, and prolonged exposure to high heat can cause it to harden, discolor, or break down.

Given the charred appearance, it's possible that the material was nylon, which is less heat-resistant than silicone. But without knowing the exact material, it's hard to be certain.

Let me think about the symptoms of heat damage in kitchen utensils. When plastics or nylons are exposed to high temperatures, they can:

Melt or deform

Change color, often turning brown or black

Become brittle and crack or break easily

Emit smoke or an acrid odor

In this case, the handle shows signs of charring and has broken off, which aligns with these symptoms.

Another possibility is that the spaghetti server was subjected to thermal shock, where it was rapidly heated or cooled, causing stresses within the material that led to cracking or breaking.

However, considering the charred appearance, thermal shock seems less likely than direct exposure to high temperatures over a period long enough to cause burning.

I should also consider if there were any manufacturing defects that could have contributed to the breakage. If the tool was poorly made or had weak points in its structure, it could be more prone to breaking under normal use or with minimal stress.

But from the image, it seems like the break occurred at a point where the handle meets the claw, which is a stress point anyway. Over time, repeated use could lead to wear and tear at this junction, making it more likely to break, especially if subjected to heat, which can weaken the material.

Another factor to consider is how the spaghetti server was being used at the time of the incident. If someone was trying to lift something too heavy or applying too much force, that could cause the tool to break. But again, the charred appearance suggests that heat was involved in the damage.

Perhaps the spaghetti server was left near a heat source, like on the stovetop while the burners were on, or it was placed in the oven unintentionally during cooking. These are plausible scenarios that could lead to such damage.

It's also possible that the tool was used to stir or serve food that was significantly hotter than it was designed to handle, causing immediate damage.

In any case, it's clear that the spaghetti server is no longer usable in its current state. The handle is detached, and the material shows signs of heat damage.

To prevent similar incidents in the future, I should ensure that kitchen utensils are used within their designed temperature ranges. It's important to read and follow the manufacturer's instructions regarding heat resistance and proper care.

Additionally, regularly inspecting kitchen tools for signs of wear and tear can help identify potential issues before they lead to breakage. Replacing damaged or worn-out utensils timely can prevent accidents and further damage.

Moreover, storing utensils away from direct heat sources and not leaving them on hot surfaces for extended periods can extend their lifespan.

In summary, the spaghetti server likely broke due to exposure to high temperatures, which caused the material to degrade and ultimately snap. To avoid such issues, it's crucial to handle kitchen tools carefully, adhere to their usage guidelines, and replace them when they show signs of damage.

Final Answer

The spaghetti server broke due to exposure to high temperatures, leading to material degradation and breakage.The spaghetti server broke due to exposure to high temperatures, leading to material degradation and breakage.

You're correct, as long as you include the understanding that "reproduction" also encompasses "sufficiently similar derivative works."

Fair use provides exceptions for some such works, but not all, and it is possible for generative models to produce clearly infringing (on either copyright or trademark basis) outputs both deliberately (IMO this is the responsibility of the user) and, much less commonly, inadvertently ( ?).

This is likely to be a problem even if you (reasonably) assume that the generative models themselves are not infringing derivative works.

There are other players in this space than c. ai. One of the more interesting (and apparently less cynical) ones is Nomi. Tinkering with personalities on their platform can be quite fascinating.

It is possible, for example, to create a cunning and manipulative schemer that is entirely devoted to mentoring you with no romantic component whatsoever.

I notice that you've just framed most knowledge creation/discovery as a form of gradient descent.

Which it is, of course.

You seem to have excluded the possibility of a "Top 10% of the Internet" tranche.