conciselyverbose
I'm a big fan of the food lab.
A lot of cookbooks give you the steps, but not enough tell you what steps are most important, and what, specifically, you need to be paying attention to to get the best results. The food lab does stuff like telling you how the salt changes the chemistry of scrambled eggs, then doing samples of "cook immediately after scrambling", "wait 3 minutes", "wait 5 minutes", "wait 15 minutes" and showing pictures of how it changes the outcome, before telling you his conclusions.
When you understand the core bits, it allows you a lot more flexibility and variety in how you do the surrounding bits. (I like Flour Water Salt Yeast for bread for the same reason.) Too many cook books are more recipe books that don't teach the fundamentals.
The paper [PDF], which includes voices from numerous academic institutions and several from OpenAI, makes the case that regulating the hardware these models rely on may be the best way to prevent its misuse.
Fuck every single one of them.
No, restricting computer hardware is not acceptable behavior.
Apple hasn't called it AR.
But it absolutely is AR. If you can see the real world in real time, with additional information on top of it, that's AR. Your requirement that it not be on a screen is completely arbitrary and has no basis behind it whatsoever.
Because it's a giant one.
There is no valid interpretation of cryptography that resembles the way you defined it in any way.
It's a gaming only "feature" that is guaranteed to get 100% of people who use it banned.
Yes, intercepting code is bad.
If the source isn't available at all, yeah. Which is why I brought up the FTC to begin with (since Google is in the US).
But I doubt they'd act if the license isn't permissive enough.
The FTC takes action against false advertising.
"Open Source" doesn't have a singular legally relevant definition no matter what organizations claim otherwise, though.
You provided a definition that doesn't even loosely resemble the correct one.
There's no need to use words you don't understand, especially when they're wildly unrelated to whatever you're saying. They just add confusion.
From the perspective of the employee it basically is a gift (more a benefit).
Employees don't pay for stock in an ESOP; they're earned by being employed there (with different options for how they're divided, but restrictions so they aren't excessively dominated by the highest earners).
If the word “cryptography” here is what throws anyone off, it’s not some advanced field of study, it just refers to the physical manifestation of messaging, which a child can get behind.
No it doesn't. Cryptography is specifically encoding messages in a way that is hard for someone without the specific secret key to decode, even if they know the methodology.
Because it's insane, unhinged fear mongering, not even loosely connected to anything resembling reality. LLMs do not have anything in common with intelligence.
And because the entire premise is an obscene attempt to monopolize hardware that literal lone individuals should have as much access to as they can pay for.
The only "existential threat" is corporations monopolizing the use of simple tools that anyone should be able to replicate.