At least the European Commission has their own Mastodon instance.

Wouldn’t the algorithm that creates these models in the first place fit the bill? Given that it takes a bunch of text data, and manages to organize this in such a fashion that the resulting model can combine knowledge from pieces of text, I would argue so.

What is understanding knowledge anyways? Wouldn’t humans not fit the bill either, given that for most of our knowledge we do not know why it is the way it is, or even had rules that were - in hindsight - incorrect?

If a model is more capable of solving a problem than an average human being, isn’t it, in its own way, some form of intelligent? And, to take things to the utter extreme, wouldn’t evolution itself be intelligent, given that it causes intelligent behavior to emerge, for example, viruses adapting to external threats? What about an (iterative) optimization algorithm that finds solutions that no human would be able to find?

Intellegence has a very clear definition.

I would disagree, it is probably one of the most hard to define things out there, which has changed greatly with time, and is core to the study of philosophy. Every time a being or thing fits a definition of intelligent, the definition often altered to exclude, as has been done many times.

The flute doesn’t make for a good example, as the end user can take it and modify it as they wish, including third party parts.

If we force it: It would be if the manufacturer made it such that all (even third party) parts for These flutes can only be distributed through their store, and they use this restriction to force any third party to comply with additional requirements.

The key problem is isn’t including third party parts, it is actively blocking the usage of third party parts, forcing additional rules (which affect existing markets, like payment processors) upon them, making use of control and market dominance to accomplish this.

The Microsoft case was, in my view, weaker than this case against Apple, but their significant market dominance in the desktop OS market made it such that it was deemed anti-competitive anyways. It probably did not help that web standards suffered greatly when MS was at the helm, and making a competitive compatible browser was nigh impossible: most websites were designed for IE, using IE specific tech, effectively locking users into using IE. Because all users were using IE, developing a website using different tech was effectively useless, as users would, for other websites, end up using IE anyways. As IE was effectively the Windows browser (ignoring the brief period for IE for Mac…), this effectively ensured the Windows dominance too. Note that, without market dominance, websites would not pander specifically to IE, and this specific tie-in would be much less problematic.

In the end, Google ended IE’s reign by using Google Chrome, advertising it using the Google search engine’s reach. But if Microsoft had locked down the OS, like Apple does, and required everything to go through their ‘app store’. I don’t doubt we would have ended up with a similar browser engine restriction that Apple has, with all browsers being effectively a wrapper around the exact same underlying browser.

Why would company A need to accomodate any other “app store” in their product, especially if one of their product’s selling point is how streamlined it is?

Why should Microsoft allow for other browsers to be installed on Windows? Why should Google allow for other search engines being selectable on Android and in Chrome? The reason in all these cases is the same: it is anti-competitive, and creates a monopoly. This results in unfairly high costs to users, where these users are 3rd party software developers or end users. Due to this countries have laws against this.

Companies obviously wouldn’t want to accommodate others in ways that cost them money, but that does not make it morally acceptable from a societal point of view.

Yes, true, but that is assuming:

1. Any potential future improvement solely comes from ingesting more useful data.
2. That the amount of data produced is not ever increasing (even excluding AI slop).
3. No (new) techniques that makes it more efficient in terms of data required to train are published or engineered.
4. No (new) techniques that improve reliability are used, e.g. by specializing it for code auditing specifically.

What the author of the blogpost has shown is that it can find useful issues even now. If you apply this to a codebase, have a human categorize issues by real / fake, and train the thing to make it more likely to generate real issues and less likely to generate false positives, it could still be improved specifically for this application. That does not require nearly as much data as general improvements.

While I agree that improvements are not a given, I wouldn’t assume that it could never happen anymore. Despite these companies effectively exhausting all of the text on the internet, currently improvements are still being made left-right-and-center. If the many billions they are spending improve these models such that we have a fancy new tool for ensuring our software is more safe and secure: great! If it ends up being an endless money pit, and nothing ever comes from it, oh well. I’ll just wait-and-see which of the two will be the case.

Not quite, though. In the blogpost the pentester notes that it found a similar issue (that he overlooked) that occurred elsewhere, in the logoff handler, which the pentester noted and verified when spitting through a number of the reports it generated. Additionally, the pentester noted that the fix it supplied accounted for (and documented) a issue that it accounted for, that his own suggested fix for the issue was (still) susceptible to. This shows that it could be(come) a new tool that allows us to identify issues that are not found with techniques like fuzzing and can even be overlooked by a pentester actively searching for them, never mind a kernel programmer.

Now, these models generate a ton of false positives, which make the signal-to-noise ratio still much higher than what would be preferred. But the fact that a language model can locate and identify these issues at all, even if sporadically, is already orders of magnitude more than what I would have expected initially. I would have expected it to only hallucinate issues, not finding anything that is remotely like an actual security issue. Much like the spam the curl project is experiencing.

The key point that is being made is that it you are doing de facto copyright infringement of plagiarism by creating a copy, it shouldn’t matter whether that copy was made though copy paste, re-compressing the same image, or by using AI model. The product being the copy paste operation, the image editor or the AI model here, not the (copyrighted) image itself. You can still sell computers with copy paste (despite some attempts from large copyright holders with DRM), and you can still sell image editors.

However, unlike copy paste and the image editor, the AI model could memorize and emit training data, without the input data implying the copyrighted work. (exclude the case where the image was provided itself, or a highly detailed description describing the work was provided, as in this case it would clearly be the user that is at fault, and intending for this to happen)

At the same time, it should be noted that exact replication of training data isn’t exactly desirable in any case, and online services for image generation could include a image similarity check against training data, and many probably do this already.

Also, the user experience is also bound to be much better when a manufacturer provides a tested and supported operating system, especially for “non-experts” for whom a terminal is an arcane inscription tablet.

Fair, though I don’t think rallies are a good indicator for enthusiasm in the general voting public. If you have access to polls you may be able to judge things somewhat better (even if polls have their own problems). I like to believe that a politician like Bernie is smart enough to have at least given the option a thought, and figured that running would guarantee a DJT win.

With hindsight, it may be easy to say that it would have been worth a try anyway (given who won in the end…).

Even so, even if he won, it would not be easy to be a president without backing in the US. The only reason DJT is not in prison is support from the other branches of the US government.

It is surprising how many people don’t realise the spoiler effect inherent in first-past-the-post makes running as an independent an bad idea: you are more likely to split the vote with a candidate who agrees with some of your points, causing both of you to lose, than being able to bring change.

Thunderbird has RSS integrated, which could be quite neat once that synchronizes.

I think the video LegalEagle uploaded explains it quite succinctly: for the sale there was a certain split between the debtors, the debtors with the largest portion were willing to forego a portion such that the other debtors would get a larger portion if The Onion’s bid was the winning one. In effect, the other debtors would get more money out of the 1.75m than the 3.5m bid, and the debtors that ‘got less’ are the ones that offered the money in the first place.

Also, the game theory that gives us insight into voting systems, telling us the current system leads to a 2 party system, did not exist when the US constitution was written.

They were removed from MAINTAINERS, which is what identifies the people responsible for maintaining a piece of code, a subsystem of Linux, not the credits, which is encoded in the git commit history.

A very similar situation to that analysed in this paper that was recently published. The quality of what is generated degrades significantly.

Although they mostly investigate replacing the data with ai generated data in each step, so I doubt the effect will be as pronounced in practice. Human writing will still be included and even curation of ai generated text by people can skew the distribution of the training data (as the process by these editors would inevitably do, as reasonable text could get through the cracks.)

Trump supports Russia and Israel, the dems support Israel. If you pick Trump, both groups pay the price. Depending on who you pick one group will pay the price or not, one group will pay the price no matter what; yet for this group (the Palestinians) the degree to which will probably differ, I suspect Trump may be worse given that he avoids supporting a ceasefire at all and tells the Israeli government to finish what they started. People from Palestine state the same: Trump would be worse, but neither choice would support them.

Do keep in mind that in Europe there are often required checks whether a car is ‘roadworthy’, in Norway this seems to be a biannual check: so you cannot really skip maintenance to the extent that that would be a huge factor.