Deep learning doesn’t stop at llms. Honestly, language isn’t a great use case for them. They are—by nature—statistics machines, so if you have a fuck load of data to crunch, they can work very quickly to find patterns. The patterns might not always be correct, but if they are easy to check, then it might be faster to use them and modify the result compared to doing it all yourself.

I don’t know what this person does, though, and it will depend on the specifics of the situation for how they are used.

Tropospheric so2 is a problem for reasons beyond warming.

Stratospheric so2 might not be a problem, but geoengineering is always risky.

Plus, since so2 is significantly more reactive than co2, it will be removed from the atmosphere more quickly, meaning that it can only act as a temporary mask without constant maintenance. All-in-all, it’s probably best to see how much damage we are doing early on before we find ourselves in the so2 equivalent of credit card debt and slowly poisoning ourselves to death trying to stay cool.

Tenure is—and should be—powerful. UPenn is an R1 institute; if her research is good, it will be hard to do anything until it becomes a significant issue. Like now.

The software is free, but it looks like the trademark is not. So WordPress bans WP engine from some WordPress stuff b/c they aren’t technically WordPress. In other words, they’re free to use (and change) the software, but they can’t (or, rather, shouldn’t) use the name—according to WordPress. WP sues for usage anyway after they are barred from some event or something, but now WordPress is suing back, turning an unofficial dispute to a legal one.

It would probably have to be updated in each place it is used, and these articles are unlikely to be frequently updated. It’s only had that name for a few years.

Pinpoint the 5 second interval*

It looks like a research group found a security vulnerability that they then used to find a single common key in all of the cards made by this company. The second part here is a reasonable concern, but the article calls the vulnerability a backdoor in the beginning, which I think is fairly misleading.

Things that affect your way of life creep into your identity. Disabilities—including physical ones—change how you live, so they change how you view yourself and your relation to society (your identity). “A part of one’s identity” is maybe more fitting, but that’s pretty pedantic.

Also, I’m not sure you should suggest that someone’s identity is somehow less real than a mental condition. Both of them are integral functions of the mind that deeply and directly impact a person’s life. While I grant that many see identity as ‘less important’ or ‘more mutable’ (and thus less impactful) than diagnosable conditions, I’m not sure we should accept that without argument, and this comment inadvertently accepts it a priori.

Or to show the other superpower that we have better rockets.

It (along with Stokes’ theorem (they’re actually the same theorem in different dimensions)) helps yield Maxwell’s equations; specifically, if you want to change the flux of the electric field through a surface (right hand side), you need to change the amount of charge it contains (the source of the divergence on the left hand side). In other words, if you have the same charge contained by a surface, it will have the same flux going through it, which means you can change the surface however you wish and the math will still be the same. Physicists use this to reduce some complex problems into problems on a sphere or a box—objects with nice, easily calculable symmetries.

“Humans are a cancer…” is a statement of fact. It is the solution that determines if someone is an ecofascist:

… so we should kill off humans and cure the world

is an ecofascist statement and is a problem.

… and we are going to kill our host

is still in the declarative form. Is is apparently defeatist/fatalist and may or may not be a problem depending on the other views of the person

… so we should stop being cancerous.

is more optimistic of human determinism. I think it is the most hopeful and helpful to our situation, but it is not inherently good, and not coming to this conclusion is not inherently bad.

I’m not 100% sure, but I think anyone with that code can use your dns profile

Maxwell’s equations have already been rewritten into the Dirac equation. Magnetic monopoles are quantum weird and would not show up in undergrad textbooks regardless

Looking this up, I found a bunch of stuff from last year talking about it and only the yahoo source from the past couple days. I also found this:

https://earthsky.org/sun/sun-news-activity-solar-flare-cme-aurora-updates/

Which suggests no m9.8 flare recently

Personally, I want FDA approval to mean it is as provably safe and effective as possible. They said they wanted more evidence before approval, and I think that’s okay. Good, even.

The way the US treats recreational drug use and self-medication is horrific, but it’s not really the domain of the FDA.

I would rather have not-yet-FDA-approved legal-for-personal-use mdma than what we have now or an unproven drug approved by the FDA.

Or is it exactly like saturns rings but we see the whole ring bent round the top because a black hole bends the light around so we can see it?

Hit the nail pretty hard on the head there

Tracing is fine if you use it to learn how to draw. It’s not fine if it ends up in the finished product. Determining if it ends up in the finished product with AI either means finding the exact pattern in the AI’s output (which you will not), or clearly understanding how AI use their training data (which we do not)

It depends on how much you compress the jpeg. If it gets compressed down to 4 pixels, it cannot be seen as infringement. Technically, the word cloud is lossy compression too: it has all of the information of the text, but none of the structure. I think it depends largely on how well you can reconstruct the original from the data. A word cloud, for instance, cannot be used to reconstruct the original. Nor can a compressed jpeg, ofc; that’s the definition of lossy. But most of the information is still there, so a casual observer can quickly glean the gist of the image. There is a line somewhere between finding the average color of a work (compression down to one pixel) and jpeg compression levels.

Is the line where the main idea of the work becomes obscured? Surely not, since a summary hardly infringes on the copyright of a book. I don’t know where this line should be drawn (personally, I feel very Stallman-esque about copyright: IP is not a coherent concept), but if we want to put rules on these things, we need to well-define them, which requires venturing into the domain of information theory (what percentage of the entropy in the original is part of the redistributed work, for example), but I don’t know how realistic that is in the context of law.

Saying that statistical analysis is derivative work is a massive stretch. Generative AI is just a way of representing statistical data. It’s not particularly informative or useful (it may be subject to random noise to create something new, for example), but calling it a derivative work in the same way that fan-fiction is derivative is disingenuous at best.

I’ve been to this site hundreds of times, but this is the first time I’ve noticed

xkcd.com is best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.0 or below on a Pentium 3±1 emulated in Javascript on an Apple IIGS at a screen resolution of 1024x1. Please enable your ad blockers, disable high-heat drying, and remove your device from Airplane Mode and set it to Boat Mode. For security reasons, please leave caps lock on while browsing.