I mean, it kinda just looks like boiled chicken, so it’s probably fine? Probably not tasty, but not raw by a long shot.
I mean, it kinda just looks like boiled chicken, so it’s probably fine? Probably not tasty, but not raw by a long shot.
Depends on how you define AI to some degree, but yeah. Protein folding has basically been solved in the past few years with neural-network based AI systems.
I think you’re thinking too short term.
If they went for 15yrs before they Extinguish, and they’re able to capture 99% of the newcomers to the space, a lot of the current users will have moved on for various other reasons. So the expectation that things would reset to how they are now is false.
Many, if not most, of the people who are here now likely won’t be in 15+ years just due to generalized attrition.
Removed by mod
Sure, I agree that it’s a stupid idea from an effort vs reward perspective. It’s at best unnecessary.
But your initial position was that it couldn’t be done without being easy to prove that it was a fabrication, and I think you’re wrong about that.
I think that they are more than capable of doing it in such a way that it’s wholly word-vs-word, with no forensic evidence pointing to it being doctored. And the idea that they would do that is outlandish enough that most reasonable people would assume the post was legitimate and that the “offender” was lying about it to try and deflect blame.
It’s the classic, "No, I didn’t post that list of porn search terms to my Twitter! I was hacked!! Totally somebody hacked me and did that. Wasn’t me at all!!” But in this case it’d be something that was a pretext for the government to arrest them.
Sure, but then it’s a question of narrative not proof, right?
Because the response from X would just be, “we aren’t sure why Mr so-and-so didn’t/couldn’t immediately delete the post, but we froze it in short order because we believe the fact he would post such a thing is a matter of public interest, and we refuse to let him sweep it under the rug.”
Yeah, he could say that he posted something completely different and X changed it, but how do you prove it? Everyone would just assume it to be a lie trying to cover their ass after posting something terrible.
Not saying this is at all likely. Just that it’s possible.
And this assumes they notice it was doctored immediately anyway. Most people don’t verify that the post is correct after hitting “submit.” A good 90+% of people would probably never notice if the text was changed post upload.
You could just replace the text of a post as it gets submitted. Keep all metadata otherwise unchanged. Lock the account from being able to make edits.
Yeah, I say that every time someone tells me that they had a grandparent die. I’m like, “yeah man, that’s what grandparents do. They’re all old and stuff. Of course they die. Grow up.”
No idea why I don’t get invited to parties any more.
Probably, but if you’re interpreting user inputs as raw code, you’ve got much much worse problems going on, lol.
I will say, the longer I look at that, the less confident I am that there is any difference at all, lol.
If I saw this, I think I’d take and eat one? Like, I do love a good raisin…
It kind of depends on the facts and your jurisdiction. With the button, maybe? With a death note book, almost certainly not.
When proving the elements of attempted murder (or any non-statutory crime), the state has to prove both “mens rea” and “actus rea” (that you intended to do the thing and that you tried to do the thing), but when you’re being charged for something “attempted” you have the defense of “impossibility,” when the actions you are trying to take couldn’t have possibly worked.
Now, that doesn’t cover cases where you were only wrong in point of fact. For instance, buying fake drugs from a cop. But it does cover instances like using a voodoo doll.
There’s more detail on all the above in the illustrated guide to law, which is a pretty solid resource for stuff like this. Here are the relevant sections:
Actus Rea Explanation: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=261
Attempted Crimes: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=344
Impossibly Defense: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=416
I mean, I think “improperly obtained OpenAI’s data” with reference to China, probably means internal trade secrets were stolen. Wouldn’t be the first time China hacked a US corporation and stole all their IP, lol.
Do they still make Warheads? Those were the sour candy when I was growing up, lol.
In addition to the other listed reasons, going open source is an extra step.
The code has to be compiled to run on your system (if it’s written in a non-interpreted language, which a huge portion of software is).
You can’t just run the source code on your computer. And getting your customer’s computer to compile the source code itself would require a massive amount of overhead.
So, to distribute your software, you’re always almost always going to distribute an already compiled version, and you’d have to choose to give the customer the uncompiled version as just a separate thing on the side. And there’s no real reason to do that for most companies.
I mean, we’re doing better than basically every other 1st world country, and those that are beating us don’t have big livestock industries.
Sure, of course it’s better with people who have a phenylalanine allergy, lol. That’s like saying peanut free candy is better for people with a peanut allergy.
The kidney thing, I’ll note that your source says it “may be” better, but it’s also worth noting that aspartame has had 50yrs of studies against it, and in huge volumes (largely driven by the sugar lobby in the 80s and 90s). It’s the most studied food additive in the history of the FDA and has never been meaningfully linked to any sort of major negative health issues.
The acceptable level of intake for aspartame is 50mg/kg vs 5mg/kg for sucralose, and the list of potential side effects is shorter, with sucralose including “diarrhea” and “muscle aches” in the list.
Healthier how? Every independent study comparing sugar substitutes I’ve ever read puts aspartame as the healthiest/safest.
The real infuriating thing in this picture is the order of the books.
Putting them out 1, 2, 5, 4, 3 should be an actual crime. Like, straight to jail.
Just because it’s generally possible for the bladder to rupture before the muscles give out, it’s certainly not impossible. A myriad of conditions or even just genetics can lead to a physically weaker bladder.
I think it’s a bit bold to say that absolutely 100%, no exceptions, that the muscles will always fail first. Even if that’s true 99.99% of the time, there’s just far to much variance in human bodies to rule it out, I would think.