If you gave your AI permission to run console commands without check or verification, then you did in fact give it permission to delete everything.

That is enormously ironic, since I literally never claimed you said anything except for what you did: Namely, that synthetic data is enough to train models.

According to you, they should be able to just generate synthetic training data purely with the previous model, and then use that to train the next generation.

LIterally, the very next sentence starts with the words “Then why”, which clearly and explicitly means I’m no longer indirectly quoting you Everything else in my comment is quite explicitly my own thoughts on the matter, and why I disagree with that statment, so in actual fact, you’re the one making up shit I never said.

If the model collapse theory weren’t true, then why do LLMs need to scrape so much data from the internet for training ?

According to you, they should be able to just generate synthetic training data purely with the previous model, and then use that to train the next generation.

So why is there even a need for human input at all then ? Why are all LLM companies fighting tooth and nail against their data scraping being restricted, if real human data is in fact so unnecessary for model training, and they could just generate their own synthetic training data instead ?

You can stop models from deteriorating without new data, and you can even train them with synthetic data, but that still requires the synthetic data to either be modelled, or filtered by humans to ensure its quality. If you just take a million random chatGPT outputs, with no human filtering whatsoever, and use those to retrain the chatGPT model, and then repeat that over and over again, eventually the model will turn to shit. Each iteration some of the random tweaks chatGPT makes to their output are going to produce some low quality outputs, which are now presented to the new training model as a target to achieve, so the new model learns that the quality of this type of bad output is actually higher, which makes it more likely for it to reappear in the next set of synthetic data.

And if you turn of the random tweaks, the model may not deteriorate, but it also won’t improve, because effectively no new data is being generated.

What the hell even is the point mandating a back up alarm for self driving cars ? Backup alarms literally only exist because visibility to the rear is worse, and to warn pedestrians that a vehicle nearby is moving with very poor to no visibility, but that only applies to human operated vehicles. Autonomous vehicles use 360° sensors, they can “see” just as well in reverse as in forward. Be that good or bad, it’s equal in every direction, so mandating an alarm just for reverse seems enormously pointless. Especially since the cars tend to be slower in reverse, so if anything it’s less necessary then, vs. when they’re moving forward.

The line, imo, is: are you creating it yourself, and just using AI to help you make it faster/more convenient, or is AI the primary thing that is creating your content in the first place.

Using AI for convenience is absolutely valid imo, I routinely use chatGPT to do things like debugging code I wrote, or rewriting data sets in different formats, instead of doing to by hand, or using it for more complex search and replace jobs, if I can’t be fucked to figure out a regex to cover it.

For these kind of jobs, I think AI is a great tool.

More simply said, I personally generally use AI for small subtasks that I am entirely capable of doing myself, but are annoying/boring/repetitive/time consuming to do by hand.

Nominally you can use it to plug a generators output into a household circuit, which will provide power to that circuit in cases of a blackout, saving you from needing to unplug everything critical and daisy chain 10 multiplugs to the generator.

It could also be used to connect two seperate household circuits together, if only of them is actually live for whatever reason.

In reality you shouldn’t his at all, ever. Just daisy chain the extension cords. If you forgot to isolate the circuit by flipping the main breaker (easy to do if there’s no power anyway, because of a blackout), and then the grid comes back on, your generator is gonna have a real bad time. And then there’s obviosuly the electric shock risk of using something like this.

Technically, you’re just describing any DOS attack. The specific characteristic of a DDOS attack is the distribution, i.e. using a botnet to send traffic from thousands of different ip addresses simoultaneously, which makes DDOS attacks far harder to block than a simple DOS attack, originating from a single IP.

If “everyone will be using AI”, AI will turn to shit.

They can’t create originality, they’re only recycling and recontextualising existing information. But if you recycle and recontextualise the same information over and over again, it keeps degrading more and more.

It’s ironic that the very people who advocate for AI everywhere, fail to realise just how dependent the quality of AI content is on having real, human generated content to input to train the model.

Not to necessarily defend the idea in the article, but that comment screams that you just read the headline and not the article.

If you had read the article, you would know that the author doesn’t want to get rid of routable addresses, they want to replace the current system of IP address assignments with an automated cryptographic address system, allowing network size to rapidly increase, and self organise without reliance on a central address authority. So your analogy of having no address at all is massive misrepresentation of the authors idea.

Wildly misrepresentating ideas is never good. Even if you dislike it, by wildly misrepresentating the idea, it just discredits your own stance, because it’s (seemingly) based on falsehoods.

Pretending like the author just wants to just abolish all types of routing addresses is dishonest.

Doesn’t have to be cling film. Any flexible, non toxic, non permeable sheet will do. You could cut a square out of bag of chips, and fold it up. Or cut a corner out of those emergency blankets, if you have a spare. They’re impermeable to liquid, and ultra thin and lightweight.

You should include some flexible plastic, like cling film. In case you have to bandage an arterial or jugular wound, you need something that is impermeable to stop the bleeding. In case of jugular wounds, it’s also necessary to stop the heart from sucking air in through the dry end of the severed vein, which could make a bad situation worse.

Führer might only mean leader in Germany, but it’s rarely used outside of refering to Hitler nowadays.

Leader, in modern German, would be translated as “Anführer”, not “Führer” specifically because of the connotations. Also, using the term fuhrer in English, instead of translating as leader, clearly means it’s being used as a title, rather than a factual descriptor of what he was.

You can use Führer in context, but as it’s a title that was specifically created by and for Hitler, and never used before or since, it’s generally not used as a title for him, because people don’t want to give him the post mortem respect of addressing him by this title.

And for context, the entire German language Wikipedia entry of Hitler, calls Hitler Führer a total of 17 times. 8 of those are in direct quotes, 3 in indirect quotes, 2 of them are describing his official title “Führer und Reichsanzler” (outside of quotes only, to prevent double counting), 2 use the literal meaning of “leader” in the context of the party, NOT his title as dictator, 2 of them are talking about how he saw himself, and one is drawing a linguistic analogous link between “Führer” and “Geführten” (Leader and Followers).

Outside of quotes, there is not a single use of the term “Der Führer” as an actual honorific title (“The Führer”) for Hitler in the entire German language Wikipedia page (which is 30-40k words long).

And who gets to decide who gets killed ? Who is infallible, incorruptible and flawless enough to decide who gets executed ?

And if you cannot name them, then tell me: How many innocent people are you willing to murder, per 100 executions. If you cannot name a flawless judge, then innocents will be executed. That is a fact. So tell me: How many innocents are you willing to murder, for heinous criminals to be executed instead of getting life without parole ?

This dude was literally currently at trial for murder. That argument might apply AFTER someone has been wrongly acquitted.

This logic is literally NEVER applicable inside a court room, before the verdict has been read.

So you’re saying the victim of a crime should get to act as judge jury and executioner ?

Like I’m sorry you had to go through that, but how would you feel it your child was falsely accused of murder, and then revenge killed by a family member of a victim at trial.

There’s a reason we don’t allow vigilante justice.

Ah yes. Classic “Everyone deserves a fair trial, until I think they’ve done a bad enough crime, in which case I’ll activately cheer for that right being taken away”.

Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.

You people cheering this on, and encouraging have on your hands the blood of every single innocent person who was ever killed or assaulted by a vigilante.

Women may not not be a mathematical minority, but they absolutely are a cultural/societal minoritiy.

Cultural minorities have nothing to do with the absolute number of members the group has, but how much political and social power and influence the group holds.

That’s why black africans during apartheid Africa would still be considered minorities, even though they made up the mathematical majority of inhabitants.

Reminds of the old pile of gold (empty) meme

I mean that is kinda exactly what the developers want to provoke with timed dialogue choices. Timed dialogue choices are a game design mechanic to try and get a player to answer on instinct/gut feeling, rather than over analysing and trying to optimise the dialogue.

You not getting to think about it long is very much the intended effect, and allowing a pause would entirely defeat it.

There are of course definite accessibility concerns that should be considered and worked around, such as people with dyslexia who may not be able to properly parse the dialogue options before the timer runs out, but as a game mechanic I think forcing the player to pick on instinct definitely has merit. It helps make the game more immersive, because it puts you under the same pressure to react as your character is in the story right now, and it can lead to more interesting and ultimately enjoyable games by forcing players to potentially make a mistake, and having to find out a way to deal with the fallout.

Games that don’t allow you to pause and skip cutscenes.

I don’t want to have to miss half of the cutscenes just because someone interrupted me or the phone rang or something half way through. Alternatively, when I’m on my 23rd replay of a game, I do not want to have to sit through every cutscenes I already know by heart.

Oh, and modern games that allow manual saving at any time, not having any kind of regular auto save (looking at you here BG3).

If you’re fine from a gameplay pov with having the player save whenever, then there’s really no good reason whatsoever to not have one or two auto save slots that get saved every 10-20 minutes or so, at least as an option in the menu. ESPECIALLY in open world games (like BG3…) where you can easily go literal hours at a time without hitting a checkpoint save. And yes, I am still salty over learning about BG3’s lack of regular auto save when I lost like 2.5 hours of progress on my first run.