> I never thought a computer would pass the turing test in our lifetime
Are we talking about the single non-peer reviewed study that show that a random person might only be about 1/3 in guessing correctly that a GPT 4.5 text is a computer and not a human?
Learning to recognize the artifacts, style and logical nonsense of an LLM is a skill. People are slowly learning those and through that the turing results will natural drop, which strongly imply a major fault in how we measure turing completeness.
The issue with the green steel production in Sweden is not about regulations, nor even about energy. It is that every aspect of green hydrogen is more expensive in reality than what was promised/predicted 20 years ago, and the prices are not going down in the way that people wished. 90% of Steel foundries work through using natural gas, and when natural gas prices went after Russia invasion of Ukraine, the result has been a struggling steel industry and production moving to countries which continue to buy gas from Russia (at a discounted war price).
The market price for energy regularly reaches close to 0 in nordpool during periods of optimal weather conditions, but the market price for green hydrogen do not. It has been and continue to be quite more expensive than natural gas. Hydrogen is also a very tricky and expensive to work with, and the cost to modify or construct new foundries to use hydrogen is not simple nor a cheap upgrade. Regardless of what they do with regulations, the problem with green hydrogen are not one that politicians can solve without reaching for subsidies and pouring tax money into the black hole (which is what the Swedish government decided a few days ago).
Agree that green hydrogen is still in its infancy but I don't think it can be considered a "black hole", it's a new technology which requires, as any novel technology not yet proven commercially, government investments for research and further development.
I believe it ties quite well with the build out of renewables, the necessary plan for renewables is to overprovision since it can fluctuate, energy storage is one way to use the excess production, and another is to further develop hydrogen technology to be better suited for industrial processes requiring natural gas.
Without government investment there won't be any private enterprise developing it, it's quite known that capitalism doesn't help in taking massive risks with not-yet-proven technology, it can work for scaling, and getting into economies of scale but before that I don't think it's a black hole to bet on the future of it. At some point it will be needed to be done, rather develop the technology early, and export it rather than wait until China does it anyway (because the USA will definitely not be the first mover in this space).
I describe it as a black hole since there is no limited on how much funding it will take in, and once in, there is no reasonable expectation that we will see anything come back out. Fundamental research is useful for humanity as a whole, and rich countries should use some excess money for that purpose, but this technology was sold to the population as already solved and commercial viable.
Sending large amount of subsidizes to a single commercial entity is also very risky. The bankruptcy of Northvolt demonstrated this quite well, including how wages and costs can get inflated when a commercial venture relies a bit too much on subsidies in order to exist. The size of government funding need to be balanced with the need for government oversight in order to verify that citizens money get used correctly. Time will tell if Hybrit will share the same fate, and for now it doesn't look great.
There need to be honest and clear information when the government funds commercial ventures, especially when it involve untested research. The biggest problem with green hydrogen is that it was presented as an already solved problem that was already commercial viable. Every year for the last couple of decades it was just "a few years" before it would be cheaper than natural gas, even as natural gas prices went up in price. Some municipalities even went as far as building hydrogen infrastructure on this promise that everything from heating to transportation to electricity would be operated on green hydrogen. Now most of that is being removed as the maintenance and fuel costs has demonstrated to be way higher than expected. That was not a well use of citizens money.
It should be mention the learning disability also include dysgraphia, which include handwriting. If the motor skills is impaired, then that get classified as a learning disability regardless of how easy the person can learn a complex subject in higher education.
I view it similar to the ability to throw, kick and catch balls. Today it doesn't say much about a person ability to learn, but in the old times I can see the argument that it would be a hindrance in going through the education system. Not a learning disability per say, but a schooling disability.
I am not sure if I get the surveillance state angle here. The airline already have a passenger register, so unless you lie on the registration then the plane will have log of the travel. The airline do not offer a way to fly anonymously.
Two decades ago in my country there was also two form of ID/passports existing at the same time. The old one and the new one which had bio-metric data and a computer chip. The new did create a new privacy issue in that you had to give away bio-metric data which the old one did not have. Is that what we are talking about for real vs unreal id?
That is close. They hold a bit less info because it is for internal US use only. Its also about the required documentation to have one issued. Also, the reason many countries went biometric at the same time 2 decades ago is because the US absolutely insisted.
In many countries you do not get charged with every possible crime if there is a larger crime involve. If someone rob a place, they don't also need to have separate charges for illegally entering the place, destroying property when they broke the window, selling stolen goods, wire fraud for using the banking system, and money laundering for concealing that it is illegal money, and tax evasion. Each step is illegal on their own, but time crime statistics won't be written like that. The prosecutor may argue that if the accused are not found guilty for the primary, then secondaries may then be used.
The strange thing is that the UK are arresting people for abusing the telecom system, and not for the more serious crime like terrorism, death threats, harassment and sexual harassment.
To summarize the article, the data is highly unreliable and aren't comparable, nor is it normalized to the population. A person in UK can be charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 if they voice a death threat over the phone, while the Belarus case can be a person criticizing the government on twitter. It can also be a person in the UK who sent a unsolicited sexual image. As a legal analyze of Section 127 frames it, most thing it makes illegal is already illegal under other laws which makes it difficult to analyze the scope. A person who sends a death threat is breaking the law both by sending a death threat, but also by using (abusing) a telecom service for the purpose of sending a death threat. It is a bit of an catch all clause.
In the US it is currently very likely that every crime that involves money also involve wire fraud, unless people only use physical cash and never transfer them. They usually also involve tax fraud since illegal money is rarely declared. That makes statistics involving tax and wire fraud in the US a bit difficult to parse into meaningful data.
Religious conflict is old enough to gone through every kind of modern and non-modern ideology, including freedom of speech and humans rights. Why would the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which has been ongoing since late 19th century, be a major driver in west ideology?
It is not a suddenly adaptation of authoritarian, anti-free speech, anti-human rights. Die Gedanken sind frei demonstrates that people been fighting for freedom of speech since the middle ages.
I can give you many reasons, but I am afraid my comment will be flagged.
Some of them:
* Israel is losing support across the world, because now it can't control the narrative, before it was able, people thought journalism exist, now we see it doesn't, and we are witnessing 2 different narratives in the media vs social networks
* EU and US politicians took money from relevant lobby entities (or as we should call it: bribe)
Israel is losing support because Iran is so good at controlling the narrative. Basically all reporting from Gaza is effectively terrorist controlled. Simple test: every single example shown of someone starving was actually of a medical nature. Since they couldn't find an actual starving person to point a camera at why do you think any existed?
Because it was mentioned here that Israel needed to behave like the US in occupied Germany, I look up the numbers and while Israel was starving Palestinians Israel was providing more calories per person than the USA did for Germany.
BTW, the United Nations, which said it had food for the Palestinian to bring the calorie number up, is feeding the Sudan refugees 1/3 of the calories the USA provided to Germans after WW2, and much less than Israel supplied Gaza. But no one cares about the people the UN is starving (remember, the UN had extra calories and foods it begged to get into Gaza). No protests. No fundraisers.
Western elites are absolutely obsessed with Israel. You can see it by the way how every value goes out the window when they and/or Zionism is being criticized. Hysterical overreaction every time.
I wasn't sure if I should mention this, but there aren't much articles that talks about the negative consequences that metoo campaign had. It had some real consequences beyond just some dubious stuff.
Here in Sweden there is the "Adam case". A couple went through a bad divorce in the later part of MeToo, and the mother of two boys accused the father of sexual assaulting the older boy that was then 7 year old. The court found no evidence of the event, and because of some other aspects, gave full custody to the father. The mother then in the appeal changed the story and claimed that the boy and the father together sexual assaulted the other child, a 3 year old boy. Again the court found no evidence and marked in their decision that the new claim was not believable.
Then social service decided that in contrast to the court that the boy was a danger to other children and put the child in a treatment facility and denied any association with his father or any other member of the family. The boy was also denied access to school and for the most part any contact with other children. This went on for 5 years.
At that point a new social service worker got the case as the previous worker went on parental leave. The new worker found that neither the boy, father or the claimed victim statements had been referenced in the decision and it was exclusive based on the mothers claims. Just like the court findings, there was no evidence to collaborate any of the events. The new social worker decided thus to revert the decision and let the boy return to his father. However this was quickly reverted by his superiors, and the new social worker got removed and put on other cases. At this point investigating journalists got the wind of the case and made a fairly large documentary about it. The media publicity triggered an internal review at that social worker office.
A year later the internal review found, like the court and the new social worker, that there was zero evidence of any sexual assault and that serious mishandling had occurred in this case, especially by only considering the claims of the mother. The boy was finally reunited with his father, by now 6 years later at which point he was 13. No one has been charged with any crime, although the social service office has officially apologized to the family.
I wouldn't go that far. The message from MeToo that echoed in Sweden at the time was to "believe all women", "men are guilty until proven innocent" and "the legal system has failed us so it is time to take matters in your own hands". People acted accordingly and years later we can se the results.
The social worker did have a position of power, but they also has a review board that approved the decisions. The review board are political selected in Sweden and exist to prevent social workers from abusing that position of power. The problem in the Adam case was the zeitgeist. We can also see this in the reaction the superiors had when the new social worker took on the case.
The safeguards will prevent the AI from reproducing the proprietary drivers for the IBM-whatever printer, and it will not provide code that breaks the DRM that exist to prevent third-party drivers from working with the printer. There will however be no such safeguards or filters to prevent IBM to write a proprietary driver for their next printer, using existing GPL drivers as a building block.
I wish you luck. The music industry basically won their fight in forcing safeguards against AI music. The film industry are gaining laws regulating AI film actors. The code generating AI are only training on freely accessible code and not proprietary code. There is multiple laws being made against AI porn all over the world (or possible already on the books).
What we should fight is Rules For Thee but Not for Me.
The music industry basically won their fight in forcing safeguards against AI music. The film industry are gaining laws regulating AI film actors. The code generating AI are only training on freely accessible code and not proprietary code. There is multiple laws being made against AI porn all over the world (or possible already on the books).
Yeah, well, we'll see what our friends in China have to say about all that.
That's the inverse. Mass surveillance is bad so it should be banned, vs. using AI to thwart proprietary lock-in is good and so shouldn't be banned.
But also, is the inverse even wrong? If some store has a local CCTV that keeps recordings for a month in case someone robs them, there is no central feed/database and no one else can get them without a warrant, that's not really that objectionable. If Amazon pipes the feed from every Ring camera to the government, that's very different.
By "everywhere" I obviously don't mean "on your private property", I mean "everywhere" as in "on every street corner and so on".
If people are OK with their government putting CCTVs on every lamp post on the promise that they are "secure" and "not used to aggregate data and track people" and "only with warrant" then it's kind of "I told you so" when (not if) all of those things turn out to be false.
> using AI to thwart proprietary lock-in is good and so shouldn't be banned.
It's shortsighted because whoever runs LLMs isn't doing it to help you thwart lock in. It might for now but then they don't care about anything for now, they steal content as fast as they can and they lose billions yearly to make sure they are too big too fail. Once they are too big they will tighten the screws and literally they have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it's legal.
And surprise helping people thwart lock-in is relatively much less legal (in addition to much less profitable) than preventing people from thwarting lock-in.
It's kind of bizarre to see people thinking these LLM operators will be somehow on the side of freedom and copyleft considering what they are doing.
> By "everywhere" I obviously don't mean "on your private property", I mean "everywhere" as in "on every street corner and so on".
If they're on each person's private property then they're on every street corner and so on. The distinction you're really after is between decentralized and centralized control/access, which is rather the point.
> It's kind of bizarre to see people thinking these LLM operators will be somehow on the side of freedom and copyleft considering what they are doing.
You're conflating the operators with the thing itself.
LLMs exist and nobody can un-exist them now because they're really just code and data. The only question is, are they a thing that does what you want because there are good published models that anybody can run on their own hardware, or are the only up-to-date ones corporate and censored and politically compromised by every clodpoll who can stir up a mob?
You really try hard to misunderstand it. A small shop has own cctv to catch intruders = one thing. Local company installing cctv everywhere = different thing. In practice they can be both supplied by one company, centralized and unified and sold and fighting ANY cctv is ultimately the winning move.
> LLMs exist and nobody can un-exist them now because they're really just code and data
"Malware exists and nobody can unexist it now because it's just code and data"
> A small shop has own cctv to catch intruders = one thing. Local company installing cctv everywhere = different thing.
But that's the thing you were implying couldn't be distinguished. Every small shop having its own CCTV is different than one company having cameras everywhere, even if they both result cameras all over the place.
> "Malware exists and nobody can unexist it now because it's just code and data"
Which is accurate. Even if you tried to ban malware, or LLMs, they would still be produced by China et al. And malware is by definition bad, so you're also omitting the thing that matters again, which is that we should not ban the LLMs that aren't bad.
You don't get to unilaterally make laws for the rest of us, which is what you are trying to do when you throw around terms like "stealing" in contexts where they have no legal meaning. Sorry.
If the incumbent copyright interests insist on picking an unnecessary fight with LLMs or AI in general, they will and must lose decisively. That applies to all of the incumbents, from FSF to Disney. Things are different now.
I see; the laws aren't in question or in flux, but it's the judges who are wrong. Enlightening.
I still don't understand how copyright maximalism has suddenly become so popular on a site called "Hacker News." But it's early here, and I'm sure I'm not done learning exciting new things today.
> like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody.
Malware isn't bad for Russian crime syndicates, but we're generally content to regard them as the adversary and not care about their satisfaction. That isn't the case for someone who wants to use an LLM to fix a bug in their printer. They're doing the good work and people trying to stop them are the adversary.
> which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code?
Let's drive a stake through this one by going completely the other way. Suppose you train an LLM only on GPL code, and all the people distributing and using it are only distributing its output under the GPL. Regardless of whether that's required, it's allowed, right? How would you accuse any of those people of a GPL violation?
The pregnancy numbers are a policy and not related to accidents. It would be similar to say that children at age 3, 5 and 12 months are much more likely to end up in the hospital than other age groups, since those are the ages when they get vaccinations.
As with all statistics, there is some apple to oranges comparisons and some contexts that get lost.
Are we talking about the single non-peer reviewed study that show that a random person might only be about 1/3 in guessing correctly that a GPT 4.5 text is a computer and not a human?
Learning to recognize the artifacts, style and logical nonsense of an LLM is a skill. People are slowly learning those and through that the turing results will natural drop, which strongly imply a major fault in how we measure turing completeness.
reply