rifty

I think 'accessibility' can be reframed as being more generally about flexible configuration and control for everyone to benefit from.

For such personal devices it's not just about about disability, it's about the freedom I want as a user to mold an interface to actually fit me and my usage style moment to moment. Sometimes I want a screen read to me or just a section of it. I'm not visually impaired, I just might not want to look at the screen.

Also another notable indicator of the coupled relationship between ad and video, being demonetized hurts the videos exposure.

Though I think the blog post will probably achieve its messaging goals of diminishing Elon's character to their own public status... "Yeah you think we suck, but it would be no tangible difference to you if Elon had run it, so you should know he sucks too."

Here’s one with 1200 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39465250

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39457974

This isn't their only option... they could also just ask for more information.

A good approach here would be ask the user to further clarify what exactly they want before generating a person — "Do you want a random depiction or a specific depiction". A good tool for users is one which helps them be and feel more tactically or predictably in control of it; which means making them aware of its behavioural pitfalls so they can avoid them if they want to.

In the one month (Jan 15, 2024) since, he has posted two full length videos he had previously released on Youtube onto X, ‘Train vs Giant Pit’ (two weeks ago) and ‘100 Abandoned Dogs’ (5 days ago). For the sake of an accurate and complete context, those were originally released to Youtube 7 months ago and 1 month ago respectively. Also of note that Mr. Beast is an active user and poster on X regardless of video content.

Why did you think something completely different?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superimposition

With more video content posted on X, I imagine over time this should approximate to how things are on YouTube as this is essentially how Youtube does it: Ads are before the content but hidden behind an innocuous thumbnail; being ad safe is incentivized. But perhaps the timeline approach is different enough that it won't be as ecosystem defining as on Youtube.

I feel like it is clearly a copyright issue if someone, through whatever means, posted New York Times articles on the internet for 1000s to potentially see and find through search.

If someone through some other interface provides 1000s of people independently through private channels a New York Times article verbatim on ask isn’t this similar?

In both cases it requires users to seek it out. In both cases copyright protected content is openly available to 1000s of people. Just because you generate your stock of copied material 1 by 1 on an order by order basis doesn’t feel materially different in effect on the copyright owner. The interface owners are willing to distribute copyright protected content 1000s of times on request for it.

See here: https://youtu.be/FSqX4bt9to4?si=6KBj5vNra3rEITWI&t=439

The stainless steel is serving the appearance, feel, shape, and the structure; it is to cars what concrete was to brutalist buildings.

..and had Altman just accepted he was fired and walked away, OpenAI would have just looked bruised and not like the broken state it does now...

I don't think the current state for the employees is just on her. It's the result of both sides fighting for governance and willing to see the organization disabled if their side loses.

If it was feasible to practically fill and query a database with every answer for every practical prompt it would face would we probably call it a generally intelligent system or AGI? Maybe not AGI, but what if it was a system composed of lesser AI modules behind a universal presenting interface?

I think so because it would be perceptively indistinguishable in behaviour from any other 'true' definition of AGI.

And so I think as long as it exhibits what we perceive as universal adaptability, and performance at making decisions when working with any environments and input types, this is likely where I/we will absolutely be calling something 'complete AGI'. Though before that I imagine we will be marketing LLMs as having reached 'language-based AGI' status.

I don’t believe the above leads us to artificial superhuman intelligence in terms of conscious agent potential. For now what I believe might result in that is something that runs from a single unified neural network system. It should also be observed to be universally adaptable and performant at making decisions in all environments and consuming many input types. And then also, it should be continuously running within the network. It shouldn't halt for prompt, or pass through a text stage in the loop.

I think these sorts of automated personal knowledge gathering systems are an under developed concept. There is things going on though with projects like Spyglass which does local website indexing and search.

I wonder how many other accounts experienced this which are now being served ads again.

It seems that while the explosion would have been avoided with a deluge or flame trench, it could have also likely just been mitigated with a thicker concrete pad or a vent system.

>No harm to orca from the sound

Interesting that removing their choice of when and where to eat isn’t considered harm…

I imagine that once these get used in yachts for a while the pods will stop being familiar with attacking. It seems the end game customer of this is the fishing industry. Maybe it’s helpful because it will keep whales away from nets. But there appears to be a massive potential for incentivized over use here with no one the wiser… until 20 years later when we’re asking why whale sightings are declining.

Alternatively have Voice Control enabled and say "undo that".

There is also a three finger gesture: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/27/new-ipados-button...

The funky/disco/french house era was particularly prolific with sampling though.

The concept of self-preservation or calling it superfluous self-preservation probably works here. But perhaps saying auto-preservation conveys better the sometimes lack of conscious intention that goes on in these situations.

If people subscribe once and access everything, it seems like they'd need to charge a lot to make it a worthwhile co-op to participate in. It feels like the amount they would have to charge would become pretty financially restrictive to access the code and not in the interests of someone who wanted to open source in the first place...

- How does this handle the scenario of a developer disappearing?

Does everyone who had access through that developer continue to have access?

It seems since payment processing is handled by individual developers, no longer would people have to pay for access to the whole catalog. Does this now mean over the long term you are handling an ever increase supply of people with access who do not pay but can transfer their access to others for free?

- How does this handle the scenario of developers with subscribers who are supposed to pay a reoccurring payment but have stopped?

Does the developer have the ability to remove access to the catalog from specific subscribers?

If the developers have the ability to remove subscribers at will, doesn't this disincentivize paying at all because paying gives you no security in your access you just bought? What is your plan to arbitrate this without access to primary payment information to confirm who is right?

- It seems like although decentralized, this approximates to the journal model but for code? Is this your intention?