vortic

I don’t think they really query one another. Maybe they do though?

I wonder how undergrads would do on the same exams given unlimited time and internet access but with LLMs blocked. That’s essentially what the LLMs have.

As someone who contributes to FOSS projects, I think you put too much trust in the ability of the community to police such things. There simply aren’t enough people reviewing project code to ensure it’s safety and compliance if a maintainer or team decide to follow bad local laws or act explicitly in a malicious way. Some things get caught but I’m sure there are things thst slip through.

Even without access to Direct File since I wasn’t in a pilot state, I’ve been using the IRS’ “Free Fillable Forms” for the last few years and they’ve worked great! They don’t hold your hand as much as the paid software but for my returns they’ve been more than adequate and free!

Does anyone know how “Direct File” differs from the “Free Fillable Forms”? Does it hold your hand a little more and help you find credits/deductions? Free Fillable Forms worked well, but only so long as I knew what I needed to file. New circumstances, like adding a dependent, lead to a lot of research.

I don’t agree with these religious nuts but, in this case, I don’t think they’re completely off base regarding “God given rights”. The Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution) says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I wish the Declaration didn’t include “by their Creator” but it does.

I wonder how this compares the the number of businesses that existed in 2013 that no longer exist. I wonder for two reasons:

• Is 38% similar to the typical rate of failure for businesses and other ventures?
• How much of the 38% can be explained by closure of high-risk businesses like restaurants?

Something else that could explain a lot of it is webpages that were always intended to be ephemeral. Political campaign websites for instance.

Ah, it’s from an earnings call so it is trying to put everything in the best possible light. I wonder how much fan-splattered shit he is glossing over in that statement.

May I ask what service you switched to? I’m tired of my music app being cluttered with podcasts and audio books. I use other services for this things and don’t need them in Spotify.

Oh, do you mean X the window manager or X the social media website?

The fact that a clarification like that needs to be made shows that Twitter has a branding problem.

Now, tell me which is which:

I’m fairly sure this is only the debt accrued due to us legal losses plus interest.

What kind of laws are on the books in the UK relating to biometric data?

It would be nice to enact similar laws in the US but I doubt it will ever happen…

I don’t understand why companies who commit blatant fraud like this aren’t required to disgorge all fraudulently earned money. If someone defrauds banks they get fined based on their earnings in a way that hurts. If someone defrauds consumers for “tens of millions of dollars” they are only fined $16M.

Well, actually I do understand, I just don’t like it and don’t like what it says about this country’s priorities.

I generally agree with you but that is still a fuzzy line to draw that is likely very dependent on circumstances. The devil is in the details.

I still disagree that there is a clear line. Yes, it is obvious that photo grain is different from making you look like a human head on a shark’s body. The problem is somewhere in the middle. Determining where that line is drawn is going to be difficult and is only going to become more difficult as this technology advances.

Thanks!

Add to that the fact that our brains run software that doesn’t even try to faithfully store images and you have part of the reason that photos are, currently, more reliable than eye witnesses. That may be changing though.

Our brains are natural intelligence and perform natural learning. The results are even less reliable, predictable, and repeatable than the results provided by artificial intelligence.

Yeah, you’re right. It still scares me somewhat, though. What happens when courts fall behind and continue to rely on photo evidence after photo evidence becomes easy for anyone to fake. What happens when the courts finally do realize that photos are unreliable?

I don’t think this change can or should be stopped. It is just worrisome and thought should be put into how to mitigate the problems it will inevitably cause

It’s not just the sensors though. The software used to convert what the sensors saw into an image makes decisions. Those decisions are sometimes simple and sometimes complex. Sometimes they are the result of machine learning and might already be considered to be AI. This is just another step in the direction of less faithfulness in photos.

I disagree. It’s not that easy to draw a line.

First, current cameras that we consider to not use AI still manipulate images beyond just attempting to approximate the scene. They may not allow easy face swapping but they still don’t faithfully represent the scene much of the time.

Also, I don’t even think it is clear where we can draw a line between “normal” algorithms and “AI” algorithms. What level of machine learning is required before we consider an alrogitm to be AI?

Simple non-AI algorithms and generative AI are on a spectrum of comlexity. They aren’t discrete from one another such that they can be easily categorized.

A Polaroid is the best representation that can be made of a scene on Polaroid photo film. The lens, the paper, and other factors will always make the representation, to a degree, not real. That was the Samsung exec’s point. It’s a little disingenuous, though. The discussion shouldn’t be about “real” vs “fake” it should be about “faithful” vs “misleading”.