

I thought Hue bulbs used Zigbee?
I thought Hue bulbs used Zigbee?
The up arrow moves through the letters, e.g., A->B->C. The down arrow moves to the next character in the sequence, e.g., C->CA->CAA. If you click past the correct letter, you’ll have to click all the way through again. And if you submit the wrong letter, you have to start all over (after it takes twenty seconds attempting to connect with the wrong password and then alerts you that it didn’t work, of course).
Fair point, I should have asked about commercial games in general
That said I didn’t mean that the game studio itself would do the AI training and own their models in-house; if they did, I’d expect it to go just as poorly as you would. Rather, I’d expect the model to be created by an organization specialized in that sort of thing.
For example, “Marey” is one example I found of a GenAI model that its creators are saying was trained ethically.
Another is Adobe Firefly, where Adobe says they trained only on licensed and public domain content. It also sounds like Adobe is paying the artists whose content was used for AI training. I believe that Canva is doing something similar.
StabilityAI is also doing something similar with Stable Audio 2.0, where they partnered with a music licensing company, AudioSparx, to ensure that artists are compensated, AI opt outs are respected, etc…
I haven’t dug into any of those too deep, but they seem to be heading in the right direction at the surface level, at least.
One of the GenAI scenarios that’s the most terrifying to me is the idea of a company like Disney using all the material they have copyright for to train their own, proprietary GenAI image, audio, and video tools… not because I think the outputs would be bad, but because of the impact that would have on creators in that industry.
Fortunately, as long as copyright doesn’t apply to purely AI generated outputs, even if trained entirely on your own content, then I don’t think Disney specifically will do this.
I mention that as an example because that usage of AI, regardless of how ethically the model was trained, would still be unethical, in my opinion. Likewise in game creation, an ethically trained and operated model could still be used unethically to eliminate many people’s jobs in the interest solely of better profits.
I’d be on board with AI use (in game creation or otherwise) if a company were to say, “We’re not changing the budget we have for our human workforce, including for contractors, licensed art, and so on, other than increasing it as inflation and wages increase. We will be using ethical AI models to create more content than we otherwise would have been able to.” But I feel like in a corporate setting, its use is almost always going to result in them cutting jobs.
Are you okay with AAA studios using GenAI that was trained only on licensed works?
Depends on your e-reader! If you have a Kindle, Kobo, or Nook, yes, that’s true. However:
Boox has e-readers that run Android and you can install Hoopla. The Palma 2 is phone sized which is great. The Page, Leaf2, and Go 7 are all in the 7” form factor, plus they have 6” versions. And they have tablet sizes, too. They have both traditional black&white and color e-ink displays.
I have the Boox Air 3C and the original Palma and both are great. I’ll likely get a Boox as my next standard sized e-reader, too (whenever I replace my Kindle Oasis). Though unless the technology drastically improves before then, it’ll be one with a black and white screen. (The color is nice in the tablet sizes, though, especially for comics from Hoopla.)
Some other options that I’m less familiar with include:
It’s incredibly compatible. Capitalists want laborers to work hard. It encourages laborers to work hard so they can one day be capitalists themselves.
It also encourages them to vote for politicians who don’t serve them, but politicians, because someday they’ll benefit from their pro-business policies.
The American Dream is capitalist propaganda, not anticapitalist.
From the article:
The court documents don’t indicate that any rare books were destroyed in this process—Anthropic purchased its books in bulk from major retailers
One thing Ubuntu users should know is that the change will only provide performance boosts when GPUs are handling workloads running the OpenCL framework or the OneAPI Level Zerointerface. That likely means that people using games and similar apps will see no benefit.
Did he implement two different variations? OP said he used two different tools, not that his solutions were any different.
That said… how so?
There are many different ways two different brute force approaches might vary.
A naive search and a search with optimizations that narrow the search area (e.g., because certain criteria are known and thus don’t need to be iterated over) can both be brute force solutions.
You could also just change the search order to get a different variation. In this case, we have customer, price, meat, cheese, and we need to build a combination of those to get our solution; the way you construct that can also vary.
The comparison to your SO’s approach is a bit sloppy. He didn’t reason out a solution himself; he wrote a program to solve the puzzle.
How do you define “reasoning?” Maybe your definition is different than mine. My experience is that there is a certain amount of reasoning going on, even with non-reasoning LLMs. Being able to answer “What is the capital of the state that has Houston in it?” for example, is something I would classify as very basic reasoning. And now, LLM-powered chat bots are much more capable.
All that “reasoning” or “thinking” really is, though, is a way to get additional semantic connections in place without:
There are limits to how well reasoning these char bots can reason. One of those limits is specifically related to the context size. As the context becomes larger, the model’s capabilities become worse. By asking it to show all its work, you exacerbated that weakness.
That still doesn’t mean LLM-powered chat bots can’t reason, just that there are limits.
I used to do puzzle books with these sorts of problems when I was younger, and they always came with multiple sets of grids with row and column labels filled out to facilitate the elimination approach. I don’t know that most people would think “Hey, it would be helpful to build a grid for each way of setting up these constraints.” One grid, sure, but I don’t think one grid is sufficient for this sort of problem.
I don’t think I am - or that most people are, for that matter - capable of reasoning through all of the necessary steps in my head and aloud, without use of, at minimum, pencil and paper. I hope you wouldn’t say that I and most people aren’t capable of reasoning as a result.
I just asked Claude Opus 4 (with extended thinking and analysis tools enabled) “Given the freedom to use any tools of your choice, design an approach to solve this problem. Feel free to use any tools that are necessary, including writing code in a language of your choice.” followed by pasting your problem text. It wrote and ran some code to solve it, gave me an answer that violated constraint 7, and when I pointed that out, ran some more code and gave me a correct solution on its second attempt.
You are absolutely correct. I apologize for the error. Let me revise the solution to ensure constraint 7 is satisfied.
Thank you for catching that error. Here is the corrected solution that satisfies all nineteen constraints:
Final Solution:
Customer | Price | Cheese | Meat |
---|---|---|---|
Carol | $5.75 | Colby Jack | Ham |
Darrell | $8.75 | Gouda | Corned Beef |
Henrietta | $6.75 | Swiss | Salami |
Kenneth | $7.75 | Provolone | Prosciutto |
Lula | $3.75 | Havarti | Bologna |
Omar | $4.75 | Cheddar | Roast Beef |
Peter | $2.75 | Muenster | Liverwurst |
The key correction was recognizing that since ham cannot be paired with swiss cheese (constraint 7), and Henrietta must have swiss cheese based on the process of elimination, Henrietta cannot have ham. Through careful analysis of the remaining constraints, I determined that Carol has ham with her colby jack cheese, which satisfies all requirements.
This solution demonstrates the importance of thorough verification when solving complex constraint satisfaction problems. Even when a solution appears complete, each constraint must be individually validated to ensure accuracy.
This all took 5-10 minutes - and most of that time was spent verifying its solutions - so a third of the time your SO took.
LLMs, even those with image analysis abilities, are lacking when it comes to spatial awareness, so your critique regarding using a grid to implement a systematic elimination approach is valid.
Copyright applies to unfinished works, too. There are many reasons it might not protect an unfinished work, but those reasons are still relevant even for finished works.
If someone steals your physical drawing, that’s theft. If they take a picture of it, then use the picture - or your picture + modifications - without your permission, particularly in a commercial work, then that’s copyright infringement, but not theft. If they steal your physical drawing and then take a picture and so on, then it’s both theft and copyright infringement.
Most likely this wasn’t considered copyright infringement because the allegedly copied art isn’t copyrightable, e.g., game mechanics; or the plaintiff didn’t own the copyrights themselves and thus couldn’t sue (possibly the arts were still copyrighted by the original artists, having never been purchased; possibly they were stock assets that were re-purchased by the defendant). There are any number of reasons. However, “the work wasn’t published” isn’t one of them.
On the other hand, it’s quite likely they were able to sue for theft of trade secrets for that very reason. And they might have chosen to do that simply because proving copyright infringement is much more difficult.
This happened because the developers allegedly used assets from a game called P3, which was never released, and therefore not subject to copyright infringement claims.
That isn’t how copyright works. Copyright is awarded upon creation of a work, not upon release.
Did you turn it off by using Invidious?
OP is also in the allegedly ultra rare camp of “successfully configured Jellyfin and lived to tell the tale.” Not what I’d expect of someone unable to configure Plex correctly. I’ve not set up a Plex server myself but my guess is it wasn’t clear that it was misconfigured - it did work previously, after all.
If they’re calling it remote streaming when you’re on the same (local) network, that’s not exactly intuitive. I’d say OP’s phrasing was fair.
The witch turned the creep into a woman and the spell was complete by the time she flew away. Unfortunately, like many women, the creep was born with the body of a man (she’s AMAB). Maybe the witch could have changed her body, too, but that would have made things far too easy, given that the point of the curse was to teach her empathy.
SublimeText seems to have it. I don’t personally use it but it’s a pretty competent editor and it’s not in the feature table from the Wikipedia page someone else shared.
Sublime 3 was limited to folding by indentation; I’m not sure if that’s true for Sublime 4 as well, but the Markdown plugin docs have a note on folding and mention you can fold by section and heading levels.
Your comment wasn’t in a meta discussion; it was on a post where they were venting about people complaining about them having a women’s only space. There was certainly no indication that the regular community rules didn’t apply, nor any invitation for men to comment.
Commenting that it’s hostile for them to have a women’s only space might be ironic, but couldn’t possibly be good faith, in that context. And if the same mod banned you from multiple communities, then either it was out of line and you could appeal it, or it was warranted due to the perceived likelihood of you causing problems in those other communities and the perceived low likelihood of you contributing anything of value to them.
Even now, you’re acting like the mod(s) banned you because of her / their emotions. You don’t see how that’s misogynistic?
It makes logical sense for bad actors to be preemptively banned. Emotions have nothing to do with it.
This is obviously incorrect.