I mean, maybe that hour is a human swapping batteries and giving it a light cleaning?
I mean, maybe that hour is a human swapping batteries and giving it a light cleaning?
Yes but it’s fucking expensive to invalidate a patent. Possibly in the millions of dollars. That’s how patent trolls succeed - it’s far cheaper to own a bad patent than to fight one.
Charging maybe? A robot’s gotta eat too.
Ironically security theater can have a a placebo effect on crime rates as well. It turns out that the likelihood that someone commits a crime is strongly correlated to the chance they believe they will get caught, not the actual chance of getting caught. That’s why fake security cameras are so effective.
Only up to the point where humans notice it. It’ll make AI images easier to detect, but still pretty for humans. Probably a win-win.
Yeah, in practice feeding AI its own outputs is totally fine as long as it’s only the outputs that are approved by users.
Asking that question is the first step people need in order to finally come to that conclusion. We all just completed the process a loooooong time ago.
Sure, go for it. But good luck paying an army of copywriters to summarize every article you read.
That’s not what I’m implying. What I’m saying is that wasting time and effort on quality is pointless when the threshold for success is low.
For example, I could use aerospace quality parts (perfectly machined to micron-level tolerances) to build a toaster. However, while this would not increase the performance meaningfully, the cost would be orders of magnitude greater. Instead I can use shitty off-the-shelf parts because it doesn’t really make a difference.
Maybe in other words, engineering tolerances apply to LLMs too. They’re crude devices, but it’s totally fine if you have a crude problem.
It might be all I care about. Humans might always be better, but AI only has to be good enough at something to be valuable.
For example, summarizing an article might be incredibly low stakes (I’m feeling a bit curious today), or incredibly high stakes (I’m preparing a legal defense), depending on the context. An AI is sufficient for one use but not the other.
This seems to be millions of times more accurate, according to the article.
If AI is really that disruptive (and I believe it will be) then shouldn’t we bend over backwards to make it happen? Because otherwise it’s our geopolitical rivals who will be in control of it.
That’s because they are serious about it. Chip fabrication will likely determine the victor of the next 25 years in world politics.
AI is falling into disillusionment for like the 10th time now. We just keep redefining what AI is to mean “whatever is slightly out of reach for modern computers”.
Nah, local LLMs are easily in the range of transcribe/summarize. I bet you could do that nicely with llama 8B without even needing a gpu.
It might get expensive fast if their Google Play Services app is affected by the ruling.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s…
So, you’ve always been able to sideload apps on Android, Google is just using unfair practices to stop other people’s app stores from being popular.
When does this ruling affect Apple, who actually has a monopoly on their store?
Yeah totally agree. The general population almost never wants to go to war - the plutocrats do.
Once we take care of our own corrupt governance I suspect wars will rapidly disappear, and then weapons will likewise disappear.
Probably to allow proper sideloading of apps, instead of the contrived bullshit they already tried to pull.