izzydata

All phones are just rectangles. The no camera bump is the most important part. It is completely flat on both sides.

I suspect a huge chunk of that is labor costs rather than materials.

This is why I believe the Pixel 10a is the best designed phone to date.

I've never been so convinced by dead internet theory than I am today with this huge wave of bots advertising for Tesla today.

Perhaps they could some day. I'm basing my understanding on the current day capabilities. Once that changes I will update what I think.

I would be curious to see the end result of letting it endlessly update its inputs from its own outputs. I was under the impression that eventually this would cause delusions and if you let it do this long enough and it is solving problems that no humans can verify as correct that it isn't useful.

Maybe that is the limits of my imagination, but it seems unwise to take humans completely out of the loop. Having mathematicians around that can understand what it is doing so that we can utilize that knowledge in a way that we can have some confidence in seems important.

I don't see how its output possibilities could be infinite given a finite set of data. Taken to the extreme if you give an LLM only a single piece of information then that is going to be the only thing it can produce. Given it two pieces of information and maybe it can produce every combination of those two things. Given all of the worlds knowledge I'm sure its possible outputs are incomprehensibly large, but still not infinite. Then having its outputs match a set of really specific instructions is going to be a small subset of that.

I still think mathematicians are going to be as important as ever. The LLMs are only finding what was technically possible given our current breadth of knowledge after brute force solving problems. Eventually it will run out of things that it can do with its training and the only way to get it to do more will be training it on new human found knowledge.

Finding that new knowledge may be exponentially more difficult, but it will be much more valuable.

You would think any investor would prefer to be informed that the numbers don't match expectations even if they then decide to go ahead anyway. People like to gamble sometimes even though the likelihood of losing money is very high.

A coffee shop is more than just the coffee though. There are other considerations to be made such as location and the environment. I'm not sure you can really be a "bad customer". The customer wants whatever they want.

Threatening people is unwarranted, but of course people are allowed to choose where they buy coffee for whatever reasons they see fit. If the market decides that stores with AI posters aren't the place to be then the business has to adapt.

I agree that probably won't happen that way. There also won't be much in the way of regulation until society slowly realizes the dangers.

I think we are currently in the process of finding out now that there have been people on social media from birth and are now adult members of society.

I think a lot of people that can "see" in their mind are over-estimating their ability and a lot of people who can't are under-estimated their ability.

It's probably a spectrum like a lot of things are, except in this case it is exceptionally hard to to know where you fall on it. The gap may not be as wide as it sounds. Almost everyone is still a functioning thinking human afterall. If the gap were so wide it seems like there would be more obvious giveaways in human behavior.

5 years old is crazy, but by the time they are 15-16 it becomes difficult to restrict them from things their peers all do. There needs to be a wider push from all parents or more of a consensus from society that these platforms are dangerous.

Especially not full price. The value of buying a license for a digital download can't be $60 if the value of owning the physical version is also $60.

Personally to me the value of a temporary license to a game is at best $10. Why would I rent a game for $60?