Do you know if there’s anything for people who have no interest in merch or concerts? I’m thinking it would be pretty cool if someone set up a system where you pay a recurring amount and it gets split between artists based on what you listen to in your local library.

Much faster to skim the contents of an article than a video.

Well, if that’s how it worked before, they must’ve changed it. I installed it last night without paying and it never blocked me.

Are you talking about DeArrow? The website gives you the option to pay or just download without paying.

I have no qualms about AI being used in products. But when you have to tell me that something is “powered by AI” as if that’s your main selling point, then you do not have a good product. Tell me what it does, not how it does it.

Oh, so you mean local vs external, not browser-based vs other local solutions.

What makes the built-in database easier to attack than a separate one?

I’d be surprised if being born with a specific face configuration isn’t protected in the same way that race and gender are.

Somehow, we manage to accept organ transplants despite it hurting one healthy person a little to help an unhealthy person a lot. What’s stopping us from treating birth control the same way?

It is made by scientists. And we don’t know how to make the model determine whether or not it knows something. So far, we only have tools that tell us that something probably wasn’t in the training set (e.g. using variance across models in a mixture of experts setup), but that doesn’t tell us anything about how correct it is.

I’ve heard Elon Musk (or was it Karpathy?) talking about how camera should be sufficient for all scenarios because humans can do it on vision alone, but that’s poor reasoning IMO. Cars are not humans, so there’s no reason to confine them to the same limitations. If we want them to be safer and more capable than human drivers, one way to do that is by providing them with more information.

Oh, I see. You’re clarifying why jonne thought this was the case, not arguing for why they’re correct.

The article is about Google. Why does it matter that it’s missing from the Alphabet handbook?

Have you found any of the former?

I don’t see how it would be possible to completely replace programmers. The reason we have programming languages instead of using natural language is that the latter has ambiguities. If you start having to describe your software’s behaviour in natural language, then one of three things can happen:

1. either this new natural programming language has to make assumptions about what you intend, and thus will only be capable of outputting a certain class of software (i.e. you can’t actually create anything new),
2. or you need to learn a new way of describing things unambiguously, and now you’re back to programming but with a new language,
3. or you spend forever going back and forth with the generator until it gives you the output you want, and this would take a lot longer to do than just having an experienced programmer write it.