When fully capable adults do stupid things, like voting for an man with as many very serious faults as Trump, I blame them for doing it. That Democrats were ineffective at convincing people (or inspiring them) not to do something stupid doesn’t make the thing any less stupid to do. Inspiration is not required to avoid being idiot.

They voted for a con man, a fascist, a criminal, someone who tried to steal the last election. Kamala could be a bowl of day old warm potato salad and voting for him would still be one of the dumbest things imaginable.

I have a son that’s learning to read right now so I’ve got some first hand experience on this. This article is making a lot out of the contextual clues part of the method but consistently downplays or ignores that phonics is still part of what the kids are taught. It’s a bit of a fallback, sure, but my son isn’t being taught to skip words when he can’t figure it out.

He’s bringing home the kinds of books mentioned in the article. The sentence structure is pretty repetitive and when he comes across a word he doesn’t know he tries to look at the picture to figure out what it is. Sometimes that works and he says the right word. Other times, like there’s a picture of a bear and the word is “cub” (but I don’t think my son knew what a bear cub was), he still falls back on “cuh uh buh” to figure it out.

So he still knows the relationship between letters and sounds. He just has some other tools in his belt as well. I can’t say I find that especially concerning.

It’s like the dumbest version of the trolley problem where the tracks are reversed. You could do nothing and people will die. Or you could pull the lever (convince a bunch of people not to vote for Harris) and a lot more people will die but, hey, at least you can say you did something.

… any more so than society could – or should – force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another.

This fact is why abortion restrictions are unethical period. In no other situation do we allow the government to force a person to give up parts of their body to keep someone else alive, even their own child. But most people aren’t ready to hear that.

No mention of Gemini in their blog post on sge And their AI principles doc says

We acknowledge that large language models (LLMs) like those that power generative AI in Search have the potential to generate responses that seem to reflect opinions or emotions, since they have been trained on language that people use to reflect the human experience. We intentionally trained the models that power SGE to refrain from reflecting a persona. It is not designed to respond in the first person, for example, and we fine-tuned the model to provide objective, neutral responses that are corroborated with web results.

So a custom model.

It wasn’t Gemini, but the AI generated suggestions added to the top of Google search. But that AI was specifically trained to regurgitate and reference direct from websites, in an effort to minimize the amount of hallucinated answers.

a much stronger one would be to simply note all of the works with a Creative Commons “No Derivatives” license in the training data, since it is hard to argue that the model checkpoint isn’t derived from the training data.

Not really. First of all, creative commons strictly loosens the copyright restrictions on a work. The strongest license is actually no explicit license i.e. “All Rights Reserved.” No derivatives is already included under full, default, copyright.

Second, derivative has a pretty strict legal definition. It’s not enough to say that the derived work was created using a protected work, or even that the derived work couldn’t exist without the protected work. Some examples: create a word cloud of your favorite book, analyze the tone of news article to help you trade stocks, produce an image containing the most prominent color in every frame of a movie, or create a search index of the words found on all websites on the internet. All of that is absolutely allowed under even the strictest of copyright protections.

Statistical analysis of copyrighted materials, as in training AI, easily clears that same bar.

They do, though. They purchase data sets from people with licenses, use open source data sets, and/or scrape publicly available data themselves. Worst case they could download pirated data sets, but that’s copyright infringement committed by the entity distributing the data without the legal authority.

Beyond that, copyright doesn’t protect the work from being used to create something else, as long as you’re not distributing significant portions of it. Movie and book reviewers won that legal battle long ago.

The examples they provided were for very widely distributed stories (i.e. present in the data set many times over). The prompts they used were not provided. How many times they had to prompt was not provided. Their results are very difficult to reproduce, if not impossible, especially on newer models.

I mean, sure, it happens. But it’s not a generalizable problem. You’re not going to get it to regurgitate your Lemmy comment, even if they’ve trained on it. You can’t just go and ask it to write Harry Potter and the goblet of fire for you. It’s not the intended purpose of this technology. I expect it’ll largely be a solved problem in 5-10 years, if not sooner.

Soooo… Interstellar was wrong with all the shaking of the camera?

All for the cinematography :) I will say that there’s a small caveat in really extreme situations like close to a black hole. Spacetime gets so warped there that your head and your feet take very divergent paths through spacetime, enough to stretch you out and even break you apart at the atomic level. You’d definitely notice that…

In case of accelerating ship, I wonder what would happen in local frame once you hit/get really close to c. You’d get decelerated out of nowhere? Just as if you hit something?

Oh boy, special relativity is another fun one. So here’s the thing: there’s no “universal speed” that you’re moving so you’re never any closer to c no longer how long you accelerate for. To accelerate is to change your reference frame and there are no special reference frames.

Which is to say that any physical test you could run inside your ship will give you the same result, always. Accelerate for 13 billion years at any rate and check the the how fast light moves within your ship, the answer is always c.

This is where the name relativity comes in. You have to think in terms of relative speed. Your speed relative to earth will indeed advance closer and closer to c but never reach it. There’s a bunch of really wild and crazy implications behind this.

Like that acceleration doesn’t change the relative speeds of things uniformly. Keep accelerating at 1 meter per second per second and every second Earth’s relative speed changes by less than 1m/s. And look up relativity of simultaneity, another consequence of special relativity. It’s fascinating stuff.

One mind-altering fact that I love is that there’s no “acceleration due to gravity,” once you’re in free fall, until you hit the ground. Hop in a space ship with no windows and fly off straight in some direction. Turn off the engines and watch an accelerometer. It’ll never read anything until you run into something.

You could fly past a planet, a massive star, even a black hole. Your path through space could be full of curves and loops but you’ll never feel it. It’s popular to think of those things as like crazy high G turns but they’re not. You’re just flying in a straight line through space time.

On the flip side, say someone knocks you out and puts you on that ship. You wake up and instead of being weightless, you can walk around the ship like normal on earth. Are you on earth or is the ship in space accelerating at a constant rate? Again, there’s no way to tell. They are, physically, the same.