jamilton

Nice, works surprisingly well on mobile (iOS Firefox). It’s be nice if the UI was a little less intrusive, I have a smaller phone and it takes up a lot of the screen. Maybe just a toggle for UI visibility?

Huh, I just assumed everyone saw visual snow/noise in the dark, guess not. I was thinking of it like underexposed film grain.

I don't think I notice it that much with the night sky unless the stars are faint though.

Most states allow tips to be deducted from wages down to sub-minimum wages for for most tipped workers. Which sucks to be clear, just saying it's not unique to ride-share drivers.

Yeah, I'm not sure which way is supposed to be "sloppified". The default looks stylistically less slop-like, but obviously has the same filler content issue.

Driving is more complicated than Doom, and it doesn't look that great at Doom to me.

Right, I forgot that they also read and parse text in images well.

That's a niche inside a niche. It's a step up from existing solutions, but not an enormous one.

For anything visual, they are still effectively blind, right? Still just working off the image embedding, sometimes using scripts to actually inspect individual pixels.

One way you could do it would be to find something that 1. would sound like a bug to a human and an LLM, 2. would be "confirmed" as a bug by a LLM, and 3. would be consistently solved in the same exploitable but reasonable way by an LLM. That's assuming a codebase that's largely AI-written with human review that you're able to open an issue for (possibly indirectly).

Another way is maybe something like saying there's a bug at some endpoint and thus manipulating a bunch of bots to DDOS that endpoint without having to pay for it?

Well no, Minecraft was already wildly popular while it was in beta. Luanti was explicitly inspired by Minecraft, as stated in the article it was named Minetest up until a few years ago.

I think at some point you just have to try to read the technical content then see what you don't understand and figure that out.

>I guess no one actually wants to learn about harmony, about voicing, and voice leading, spend the hours. No one wants to learn how to actually play an instrument. I guess no one is willing to do the work. They want to just press some keys and declare that they made what the computer generated.

I don't understand that as a takeaway. Even if this worked perfectly, it would not be meaningfully stopping or discouraging anyone from learning music, and no one is claiming that what this models outputs is something the player played. It's a toy that someone made presumably because they like piano.

Sure, more spoilers ahead.

For every episode except the last 1-2 the characters are not textually aware that they're simulated humans made from a brain scan, and the conflict and plot are largely interpersonal conflict and being forced into adventures by the mad AI that runs the simulation. The characters wish that they could leave and/or change the simulation, and eventually accept their situation, and part of the conclusion is the idea that it's worth existing in their limited simulation and trying to make the best of it even though they'll never leave.

You could say it's exploring what it would be like to be trapped in a simulation with a mad AI, but I wouldn't say it explores the concept of ethics of simulating humans in general. Most of the things the humans don't like are arbitrary limitations of this simulation in particular (can't talk to the outside world, can't choose your form, can't have sex, can't have any impact on the world, forced into zany situations by an AI that doesn't really understand humans or listen to them), not anything about simulations in general. The finale touches on the idea of the simulated humans wondering about their original versions and what they're like and what they're up to, but that's about it.

Basically, I don't feel by watching the show I encountered any non-trivial ideas about human simulations just because it's about a simulation.

It really does not "explore" the concept, it just features it as a plot element.

Yeah, the filtering process probably wasn't particularly robust. The Schrodinger's cat example ("It's a cat that has been misbehavin'!") sounds like... a joke?

Looking at the paper, it looks like they started with FineWeb-Edu, then filtered it based on an "age of word acquisition" dataset, with word frequency used as a proxy for values not in the dataset. They "only discard samples in which more than 5% of the words exceed the target age of 12." Maybe 5% was too high? They also filtered out beyond K-5 math symbols, like sigma. Then they trained a classifier to do more filtering.

And they tested it on two grade-level benchmarks, and it only got 0-3% correct on the beyond k-5 boundary, while also decreasing in performance on the k-5 boundary (which they say is an acceptable tradeoff, since they were trying to get a sharp cutoff). So presumably since they got good results from the benchmark they stopped.