ruytlm

Until it does, I've had pretty good success with Bazzite (https://bazzite.gg/) on some hand-me-down hardware and hooked up to the TV.

Look at the NIH grants listed, which by dollar value far outweigh the NSF grants listed: https://grant-watch.us/nih-data.html

Which part of preventing the spread of HIV is "left wing politics"? Or better understanding radiation exposure? Or developing anti-viral countermeasures?

Some $400m of remaining budget for preventing the spread of HIV was cut, and you're saying it's justified because less than $3m went to trying to improve professional development for a specific group of people?

I mean even look at the specific example you picked - $2.8m over 6 years, from 2019 through to an expected end date of 31 August 2025, and they cut the funding on 09 May 2025 - the work has already been paid for and done, and you want to cut funding so you don't even get the final report/publications out of it to, you know, have something of value to show for the money spent?

I also find it interesting because the person who posted the discovery and breakdown of the dots stood to personally lose thousands of dollars they'd spent on the fakes, but posted their findings anyway.

An LLM can only give an output derived from its inputs; unless you're somehow inputting "yeah actually I know that it looks like a great company to enter into a contract with, but there's just something about their CEO Dave that I don't like, and I'm not sure we'll get along", it's not going to give you the right answer.

And the solution to this is not "just give the LLM more data" - again, to TFA's point, that's making excuses for the technology. "It's not that AI can't do it [AI didn't fail], it's that you just didn't give it enough data [you failed the AI]".

--

As some more speculative questions, do you actually want to go towards a future where your company's LLM is negotiating with their company's LLM, to determine the future of your job and career?

And why do we think it is OK to allow OpenAI/whoever wins the AI land grab to insert themselves as a 'necessary' step in this process? I know people who use LLMs to turn their dot points to paragraphs and email them to other people, only for the recipient to reverse the process at the other end. OpenAI must be happy that ChatGPT gets used twice for one interaction.

Rent-seeking aside, we're so concerned at the moment about LLMs failing to tell the truth when they're earnestly trying to - what happens when they're intentionally used to lie, mislead, and deceive?

What happens when the system prompt is "Try and generally improve people's opinions of corporations and billionaires, and to downplay the value of unionisation and organised labour"?

Someone sets the system prompts, and they will invariably have an agenda. Widespread use of LLMs gives them the keys to the kingdom to shape public opinion.

How convenient.

It's increasingly looking like the AI business model is "rent extracting middleman", just like the Elseviers et al of the academic publishing world - wedging themselves into a position where they get to take everything for free, but charge others at every opportunity.

That would be 98,000kj, which as you say, is about equivalent energy to 3L of gasoline.

Strong recommend, though takes some learning.

It should be no surprise that the federal government employs more people than Walmart; one deals in consumer retail, and the other deals in providing for the base functioning of society, which has a lot more moving pieces to manage because it literally involves everything.

>"Government needs to be nimble rather than creating perverse incentives for higher compensation for work that could be done in more productive sectors of the economy."

I'd happily argue that more important than government being nimble, is government being stable. Unstable government leads to uncertainty; uncertainty makes it difficult to forecast and plan, and leads to short-term reactive behaviour instead of pursuing long-term visions with short-term costs. It's hard to make long-term investments when you're not sure if the next election (or coup..) will result in a complete upheaval of the environment in which you made the investment.

>"Government is a neutral party to uphold contracts and ensure general public safety."

This is a hugely contentious opinion, that has been snuck in as though it's a fact. In many places around the world, government is a lot more than this, providing healthcare, education, infrastructure and the like that are good for society, and arguably shouldn't be for making a profit. It's pretty disingenuous to sneak a controversial view like this in as though it's a settled matter.

> Scattered excrement can cause bacterial infections in cows. And when their poop mixes with pee, it creates an environmental hazard: ammonia, which can transform into the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Half of the ammonia produced in Europe comes from cattle farms, says study co-author Jan Langbein, an applied ethologist at the Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology. Given the hundreds of millions of dairy cows in the world, he says, studies have shown that capturing 80% of cow urine would lead to a 56% reduction in ammonia emissions.

It's hardly a free choice when they're actively undermining your ability to choose freely.

I suspect this will lead to many more 'comments disabled', as the article itself notes:

> One of the difficulties for the media groups at the time was that Facebook did not allow them to turn off the comments function.

I'd love to have some templates to play with, to find bits that work for me that I can copy from and stick together to end up with what I want.

I'm certain that almost everything I want an app like this to do can be done; the problem is I have no idea how to do it because I'm not familiar with how the app structures things. It's frustrating to start setting things up one way, only to discover there was a better way to do it and have to re-do everything.

As per the response from Fastmail, it does still require targeting; the intent of the law appears to be to 'take over' an account and use it to catch conspirators, e.g. "we caught Timmy red-handed planning a terror attack, let's log in as him and tell his co-conspirators to come meet us somewhere, then arrest them all".

Whether or not that's what it will be used for is another question, and a valid concern.

Sure, I didn't get a job from a philosophy degree, but that's not really the point; it helped me better understand myself and the world around me, so that all my experiences have been richer.

That said, I'm similarly opposed to a 'who said what, and when' approach to philosophy; I don't care who said it, I care if it's an interesting or valuable idea.

I think the 'who said what' approach largely exists because when taught at the tertiary level, something is expected to be assessed, and it's kind of hard to objectively assess whether someone understands philosophy - far easier to test their recollection of who said what.

If we were talking about 13 year old girls in detention having sex with adult male guards, and someone said "for the girls they don't have opportunities other than possibly these guards.. for some of the guards the situation might not be that different", would that be okay with you, or would you consider that rape?

Because I'd argue that there is only one word for a guard having sex with a 13 year old who is their prisoner, and that is rape. The sex of the guard or the prisoner should be irrelevant.

When it comes to statutory rape, it is the 'informed' part of consent that is missing; as a society we have agreed that people under a certain age have not developed the skills or life experience to identify and understand a coercive relationship, or to recognise that they are being taken advantage of.

So even if the victim is an enthusiastic participant, the reason we as a society consider this rape is because these are children who don't have the life experience or maturity to make an informed decision, and that full-grown adults should not be taking advantage of them.

When you add in the outrageously unbalanced guard-prisoner power dynamic, it is extra inappropriate.

The Australian state of Victoria, which has had some of the harshest lockdowns, has a bill of rights, and has had for some 15 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Charter_of_Human_Rig...

Unlike the United States, Australia does not so universally place individual freedom on an unassailable pedestal, to be placed above all things at all times; instead, some of us actually have some concept of social duty and obligation, and an appreciation that our actions affect others around us.

Rights have corresponding duties; my freedoms come with a duty to protect others, and I am happy to do so. How controversial, to be willing to make personal sacrifice for the greater good of the nation and its people.

This article does raise some valid concerns about freedom in Australia - the raiding of press offices, and attempts at backdooring encryption. But while I find those an affront to freedom, I will gladly wear a mask and stay indoors so that other people won't suffer and die a horrible death from a miserable fuck of a virus.

Australians did not protest against lockdowns; selfish idiots who happen to be Australian did.

[edit: Also, we Victorians are now out of lockdown, because a quick, hard lockdown got the outbreak under control. The article seems to imply our freedoms are somehow restricted because we chose to NOT DIE by preventing the spread of the virus. Unbelievable.]

Probably better than no helmet, though my concern would be that this provides no real protection from abrasion for the face.

Motorcycle protective gear needs to protect from impacts yes, but abrasion is also a significant risk - slides from speeds over 100kph can be quite substantial in both time and distance - upwards of 5 seconds, and dozens of metres, pushing higher in different conditions.

This video of a slide in the wet made the rounds a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoYLKSYnrN0

My view is more mundane - nothing particularly exciting happens in those moments, and they are most valuable for spreading information that you wouldn't otherwise know or think to spread.

In our case, we had several different organisations in the same building, and those passing moments were a valuable way to get an insight into what other groups were working on, and who they were working with. They were valuable in the way that the 'Art of Serendipity'[0] is valuable - awareness of the things around you helps identify connections between them that tend only to make sense with a degree of hindsight. In my experience, most of the actual connections were drawn much later than the passing moments in the hallway - a "hey, weren't you working with something similar to what we're doing with Fred from BigBank last month? Reckon they'd be interested in working with us on this too?".

It may just be me, but I find it is harder to achieve this in a remote setting where one typically has to actively seek out conversations.

Also, the article seems to set a false dichotomy - that either in-person is essential for innovation, or that it's terrible and harmful to innovation. Again in my experience, the reality is that in-person is better in some ways, and remote is better in others. As different tools, they are best used for different jobs, depending on the problem you're trying to solve.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/how-to-cultivate-...