Overall it would be reasonable article, were it not completely fucked up by a ragebait headline. They’re obviously not in ‘survival mode’, unless you count ‘survival mode’ as not being able to refresh your cars to the newest model every three years.

But, there is another way of reading the article, which is that someone on $100k is much closer to someone on $30k than they are to a billionaire. They’re still in the class of people who feed their families by working salaried jobs to generate wealth for others; hating on them is the difference between righteous class warfare versus simple-minded jealousy.

deleted by creator

All I’m seeing there is he decided to deliberately did something wrong on behalf of an imaginary person and then complain that doing the deliberately wrong thing broke the computer.

Specifying a whole group and not giving names seems like it should probably be unconstitutional? Like you could just use it to unilaterally undo any law, which isn’t the intent of the pardon system. IANAL

OP should have specified Brewster’s Millions rules to avoid all the boring answers

I accidentally got dragged into a conversation at work with a gun owner who seemed to have it mapped out exactly how they thought a home invasion would play out. In their scenario they’d have the drop on the robbers, who’d never be expecting someone to keep a loaded gun by their bed while sleeping…

There was so much detail in there that it made me wonder if they actually wanted someone to come into their house so they could have an excuse to kill someone.

But what if bias was not the reason? What if your face gave genuinely useful clues about your probable performance?

I hate this so much, because spouting statistics is the number one go-to of idiot racists and other bigots trying to justify their prejudices. The whole fucking point is that judging someone’s value someone based on physical attributes outside their control, is fucking evil, and increasing the accuracy of your algorithm only makes it all the more insidious.

The Economist has never been shy to post some questionable kneejerk shit in the past, but this is approaching a low even for them. Not only do they give the concept credibility, but they’re even going out of their way to dishonestly paint it as some sort of progressive boon for the poor.

Define “held accountable”?

If you mean who will pay out if there’s an accident, presumably Waymo will have found an insurer willing to cover them. But if you mean that someone out there must be punished to satisfy some sense of vengeance, then you may want to re-examine your values.

Marrow was interested in “how public institutions decide what’s worth showing, and what happens when something outside that system appears within it”.

Wanky pretentious edgelord crap. It’s obvious what happens when you put up a shit AI-generated poster in a museum without permission. Someone asks the staff why there’s a shit AI-generated poster on the wall and they take it down. Other artists have done the “sneaking something into a gallery” thing way better than this many times before.

Sure, Art is supposed to make you think and react. But art that makes you think “wow that guy completely failed at every aspect of this” is of no value. The true scandal isn’t that he did it, it’s that some dumbfuck at the BBC thought it was worth reporting on.

Just so nobody forgets, North Face planted ads on Wikipedia, and then threw one of their regional managers under the bus when they got caught, as if to claim that it wasn’t really the real company doing it.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/05/29/lets-talk-about-the-north-face-defacing-wikipedia/

Hopping on this to share that Milo Learns made by some of my Cambodian friends also just added Japanese for conversation practice. It has an online community as well if you don’t like talking to an AI. But sadly it is freemium, so OP wins on that front. https://milo.niy.ai/

“Massive trillion dollar corporations are behaving absolutely fucking atrociously, so we need to do the same” is such an awful take that it makes me doubt the legitimacy of this user account.

Yeah, Capitalism fundamentally isn’t “for all”, it’s for holders of Capital.

It’s shocking because of how easy it was for them to do the decent thing. Literally all they had to do was nothing, but they paid for the lawyers and did the work, and made a conscious effort to fuck over the most vulnerable people in the country.

just got a bunch of his friends to agree with him

You mean the International Astronomical Union? I mean at some point if every world-level expert on the topic is saying the same thing, then maybe you need to let go of what Miss Honey told you in first grade.

This is one topic I’m quite willing to go into conspiracy theory territory on, because Google have a lot of very clever engineers and must surely know that their search is dogshit.

The only plausible explanation is that they’re somehow making more money doing this than they did by being quietly competent.

You don’t even need to reject the applicability of Gödel, because there’s no proof that our universe doesn’t include a bunch of undecidable things tucked away in the margins. Jupiter could be filled with complete nonsense for all we know.

Yeah, if you were to ask “do cisgender people like to be noticed?” people would assume you were being facetious.

First, there’s no “somehow magically” about it, the entire logic of the halting problem’s proof relies on being able to set up a contradiction. I’ll agree that returning undecidable doesn’t solve the problem as stated because the problem as stated only allows two responses.

My wider point is that the Halting problem as stated is a purely academic one that’s unlikely to ever cause a problem in any real world scenario. Indeed, the ability to say “I don’t know” to unsolvable questions is a hot topic of ongoing LLM research.

It’s easy to be dismissive because you’re talking from the frame of reference of current LLMs. The article is positing a universal truth about all possible technological advances in future LLMs.