djsjajah

Go have a look what percentage of the operating costs are covered by fares in your city. I wouldn't be surprised if the costs relating to fare enforcement were more than the revenue from fares.

I think you are overthinking it too. The task was to find three, not something that is equivalent to three. However you choose to represent it, it wouldn't be hard to come up with a different "three" that you won’t find within that representation. If you are changing the representation, why wouldn't you just change the interval that you are searching?

No. You might be reading into it a little bit too much. My point was that finding three needs to be possible for you to find it. If you are looking on the interval 0-1, it is not possible. As other comments have kinda of suggested, you could map every integer to a real and find "three" but if you are going to do that, why not just look on an interval that actually contains the number?

Not all things are possible, only potentially possible ones. If you take all the numbers between zero and one, you will find an endless supply of distinct numbers but none of them are 3.

> Note, in the stories, the majority of robots are not considered so useless/dangerous to remove positronic robots from the fictional future society

It’s a bit hard to write a story about the impacts of robots in society without a society with robots. There is also an entire series based around a world where the robots tried to rise up against humans.

> That was not demonstrated.

No, that was my summary of his point. It is not perfect, but I think it’s accurate enough. I can assure you, that none of today’s robots are completely safe. They will be just as happy to move wherever you tell them regardless of what is in the way. When I said “completely safe” I mean it in the way that the three laws are written, incapable of harm. I am not arguing that robots are not useful, but his point was about a perfect safety system. It doesn’t exist.

I don't know how you could come to that point of view. His point is that there will always be a loophole. There does not exist a set of rules that make a completely safe and useful robot.

funny, I am not surprised that it is now much harder to run an automated twitter account for legitimate purposes. Running one for illegitimate purposes on the other hand....

You have to power it all the time, but the amount of power it uses while it’s on will change by up to a few orders of magnitude depending on the gpu. It’s not uncommon for a gpu to be pulling just a couple of watts at idles and several hundred at full tilt.

So the only way it’s a fixed cost is if you don’t pay for power. If you only consider the cost of the power, it might still be cheaper paying for an api.

but what is the point? A ban is supposed to make a certain thing less likely to occur. Does a ban of open source models do that? Presumably, the behavior you are trying to limit is the miss-use of these models but I don't know how many state sponsored hacking groups are going to give a ban a second thought.

I think they were making a joke. In the future, you might consider the advice you are giving as well as giving it.

Yes. Wait a day

Not with 800 examples. If you are going to consider an ngram model, I think you are better off getting a frontier llm to write you an absurd regex.

Except, that won’t help. By the time a new fab is up and running, we will probably have a massive surplus.