Yeah, I am quite certain I have an easier time visualizing a one-pound bag of sugar—which I have seen at the grocery-store/kitchen/pantry—versus a single-pound bag of concrete.
This should include the AI companies trying to sell their product to the government, suggesting it is a strategic asset in need of protectionism, and playing the PR game of "our product will let us own the world, we're so awesome you should be scared and invest."
There's definitely a gulf between living-situations, and people assuming their local experience is nationally representative.
I had a car-purchase decision a few years ago, and ultimately I had to choose based on the housing I had, not the housing I wish I had. It was frustrating to hear a lot of "you can just X" from folks who couldn't seem to imagine an apartment or chaotic street-parking.
> The chaotic nature of film grain [...] produces noise that originates from the natural world, and makes each frame unique. Noise generated through interaction with a fixed-pattern sensor and locked to a manufactured grid is fundamentally different – closer to mathematical white noise.
There's a possible parallel here in audio: Pink Noise [0] has a profile is closer to natural sounds in the physical world, such as falling water. It might be better/more-satisfying to humans because it's closer to what our brains have learned is "correct" noise.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar phenomenon in the visual realm.
I once compared the historic GDP values, and IIRC if Iraq-vs-US in 2003 is 1x baseline, then Iran-vs-US today is 7x. Plus Iran (today) has 2x the population and 3x times the land area than Iraq (today).
Not only that, but even the status of the goals is insane.
Right now Republicans are just flipping a coin every day to decide whether each "goal" is (A) a critical need where only Dear Leader can save us or (B) a glorious victory for Dear Leader who has solved everything forever.
We saw the same with the the mutually-incompatible and shifting "goals" of the illegal taxes on American buyers (tariffs.) Some of those "goals" were being pre-declared as achieved simply by announcing the policy. (Narrator: "They weren't.")
It sounds kind of like being stuck working with coworkers who--while not overtly hostile--need constant hand-holding and repeat the same kinds of mistakes every day and can't even be genuinely sorry about it.
Just because we work with computers doesn't mean we don't take, er, social-damage. Or perhaps parasocial damage, in this case.
I frame it as a document extender trained on other documents. Any "mind" we perceive is an illusion in our heads as we experience a story about a character, and the "intelligence" is reflected at us back out of our collective writings.
I can make a program that writes a stories involving Santa Claus, and I can make another program that takes the hidden script and performs certain lines... but at the end of the day I have not made him real.
They don't need to formally solicit feedback to hear that it's a daft idea, especially when the dramatically more-expensive and vulnerable sites can't be placed much closer to the equator.
This is likely a performance to satisfy dictates from the White House.
Right, and when it comes to "what happens when the macrophage can't destroy what it engulfed", we can probably learn a lot from parallel work studying tattoos, where the ink-particles are similarly "attacked".
Plus it's a lot easier to create studies or even just observe the cells in question.
> The idea that they could be trained on private/restricted/copyrighted data and that was ok because there wouldn't be redistributing that data should have been killed 3 years ago.
I know, it's kind of mind-boggling. It's not old enough to be a history problem [0], and it's hardly a secret, so I have to assume it's a state of denial.
In other words, there are groups of developers and executives (and investor-money) with a collective motiviation to desperately shut their eyes and pray that Bad Thing simply won't happen to their product, at least not before someone else invents a revolutionary Silver Bullet that makes it go away.
[0] "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -- George Santanya
IANAL but I would assume that such an agreement (A) falls under trademark law and (B) is being done to avoid a costly/embarrassing fight, even if it's a fight Thiel might win.
Over many years I've tried to (unsuccessfully) coin the phrase "Design for deletion."
The code in front of you works today, but will become unfit for purpose and un-salvageable, and we want to ensure that when that inevitable end happens, there is a sane and safe way to systematically chop it out and replace it with something else, something you are not capable of predicting.
There's substantial overlap with general principles like loose-coupling and modularity, but the framing changes how people apply them: Instead of trying to create durable Amazing-Thing which will be used for many years by people amazed at your foresight making it "flexible" and "modular" and "customizable", you focus on creating Inoffensive-Thing which can be easily killed off or dismantled for useful parts.
I'm imagining the Silicon Valley scene where the character Gilfoyle has set up a loud death-metal automated noise that plays whenever the price of Bitcoin meets certain conditions... except the trigger is some kind of code-quality metric, the effect is my machine shouting at me to become serene.