MrToadMan

Was it a first version in TypeScript then rewrite to rust situation?

Apart from the fact that elite sports are funded probably at least 10x more than pure mathematics research.

Why should we all need to agree that 'ai can replace us' when 'us' can mean such different things to different people: someone pushing out content on TikTok has a lower bar for accuracy than someone signing off on documents to be submitted for review by a court. I think that's the origin of a lot of discrepancy between viewpoints on AI that gets in the way of talking about the benefits and harms that we can each identify and framing the discussion around how those are changing when these tools are used. There is no inevitability about AI everywhere - we have the agency to decide when it's right to use it and when it's wrong.

To add to that, I don’t think many employers will be happy about their legal exposure to inadequate training and supervision when things go wrong if this is the sort of training people are resorting to. Especially if insurers are excluding coverage for losses arising from the use of generative AI, as seems to be happening.

A more accurate headline would be 'temporarily blocked' given the first line below the heading is 'The page is now back online' and it seems to have been brought back online the same day.

Didn't they say that they launched an effort to evaluate their model on all open Millennium Prize problems, and then narrowed down to Navier-Stokes as the most promising after seeing results on simplified versions of the problems?

Google also spent heavily setting up deals with other platform owners, invested in Chrome and Android to establish Google search as the default option which most users accepted. If integrations of good enough AI features are made within existing platforms most users will probably accept using those and not think too much about whose model is powering it.

People can also ask questions that it is unreasonable to expect people to know on the spot too and after a while the role of the questioner in the meeting can be questioned. :)

Also worth watching John Oliver’s segment on this topic on Last Week Tonight (https://youtube.com/shorts/BAEjOAe948k?si=Lfkw6prZxHk2R-I2)

Includes an example of a Flock camera flagging a number plate that the police pulled over, a family car SUV believing it to be stolen, but the stolen vehicle was actually a motorcycle with the same plate number but a different state!

In some cases, aren’t the permits not even being sought?

Eg https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/pollution-musks-unper...

Much like his earlier work Westworld which was also scarily prescient for modern times.

> These are highly complicated pieces of equipment. Almost as complicated as living organisms. In some cases, they have been designed by other computers. We don't know exactly how they work.

The competence threshold can vary according to the model's complexity and cost to run, but the broader point remains that having a human operator of greater competence that can evaluate the output and understand potential harms that might result seems to be a valid one. Depending on domain, it can be irresponsible to deploy systems you don't fully understand that could harm others. Responsibly overseeing 37k lines of code a day sounds exhausting.

If only they had access to a world class translation system, they could auto translate between languages effortlessly :)

I guess my point was that I don't see many algo changes in the commit history, which is a shame if this has been lost; library/* files are largely unchanged from the initial commits. But each time the agent runs, it has access to the best solutions found so far and can start from there, often using randomisation, which the agent claims helps it escape local minima e.g. 'simulated annealing as a universal improver'. It would be nice to see how its learnt knowledge performs when applied to unseen problems in a restricted timeframe.

Not as many changes to the files under library as I expected to see. Most changes seemed to be under a single ‘add stuff’ commit. If some of the solvers are randomised, then repeatedly running and recording best solution found will continually improve over time and give the illusion of the agent making algorithmic advancements, won’t it?

Locking down children’s devices doesn’t stop adults sharing illegal content with other adults though, so there would still be pressure to monitor communications between adults.

Conversely, buying pizza with MELANIA has left me with zero regrets.

What if while you were eating a cheeseburger, McDonald’s was magically replenishing that burger so that no matter how much you kept eating there was still some left. Moreover you had little control over the ratios of fat and sugar used to replenish it and they earned more the longer you spent eating it. Would you consider them harming you if they were prioritising stuffing it with ingredients that maximised the amount you ate and ignored sensible limits on sugar and fat?

Isn’t the information flow being controlled by the few major social media players another form of centralisation where their algorithms decide which decentralised voices are heard?

Worth mentioning the case brought by the DOJ against Meta with regards housing ads discriminating on protected characteristics in 2022.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...

Or if they took my deposit and commingled it with company funds and bought some illiquid luxury real estate in the Bahamas for their staff to live in totalling $240m. If they’re upfront about that, probably nobody deposits with them.

The swamp is now a protected wetland.

And even funnier in that context: it’s called ‘roundabout technologies’.

Is this as impressive as it initially seems though? A Bing search for the text shows up some Web results for Dvorak to QWERTY conversion, I think because the word ‘t.fxrape’ (keyboard) hits. So there’s a lot of good luck happening there.

Although PA was bundled in with two other organisations in the vote, the vote did pass 385 votes to 26, so it seems there was broad support across MPs, not just the cabinet.

From what I've read, about 1/3 of all asylum seekers over the last 7 years arrived via small boat crossings.

Looking forward though, about 90% of those arriving in small boat crossings are currently going on to seek asylum and the average annual cost of supporting an asylum seeker during their claim has risen to an estimated £41k, so for ~30k arrivals this year, the financial cost of not processing these claims promptly could increase that overall annual bill further still.

Also, in the first year of processing, costs may be drawn from the overseas aid budget (which was recently shrunk). This results in possibly 1/5 of the overseas aid budget being used for costs associated with processing asylum claims, which perhaps doesn't match most people's expectations as to what overseas aid should be used for.

I think that's why even though the number of people involved in these crossings is small compared to net migration, it has a big financial impact.

The UK did have compulsory ID cards, which needed to be carried at all times, during both World Wars.

Depends on if you are looking at this in terms of numbers of people or cost. The Home Office annual spend on processing asylum seekers has ballooned from just under £1 billion to near £5 billion in the space of 5 years, which is 1/3 of the estimated £14 billion raised from the unpopular National Insurance increase.

Seems intuitive: the group passengers are likely to have to cough up another 5-10% more at the time of check-in, in order to sit together, so it all evens out.

You can explore the amount paid out to projects by month, region and partner projects in those regions here: https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...