side_up_down

The great filter would have needed to happen before the transmission of radio waves to be a solution to the Fermi Paradox

Brave has an AI-specific API

I'd take "running at home" to mean running on reasonably available consumer hardware, which your setup is not. You can obviously build custom, but who's actually going to do that? OP's point is valid

How does this incorporate case law?

There's a great non-AI point in this article - Seattle has great engineers. In pursuing startups, Seattle engineers are relatively unambitious compared to the Bay Area. By that I mean there's less "shooting for unicorns" and a comparatively more reserved startup culture and environment.

I'm not sure why. I don't think it's access to capital, but I'd love to hear thoughts.

There are thousands of Meta employees on HN and none answered this post.

Why not? Look at the kinds of discussion that happened in their absence.

I worked at Meta for a few years. Facsimiles aside, it's no different than any other corporate machine.

You can be sure Google's lawyers vetted the training to ensure it was lawful instruction.

It sounds like there's some other cultural problems at your company :)

Nice framing. I agree with that interpretation.

I'd argue communication is always an approximation to an ideal, anyways. The original version is going to be incomplete. How adequately can English (or your language of choice) represent a complex event or concept?

I'd add another sentence to that:

"Understand that even with the best intentions you'll likely still get it wrong."

Objective truth is incredibly unwieldly. It's almost impossible to get right - just considering imperfections in communication alone.

Ever play the game of telephone? One person tells a fact to someone, who tells that fact to another person. Go 3 hops and you're almost certainly going to end with a different fact than you started with.

Each step of knowledge transfer incurs loss - and this applies to all forms of communication.

What?

Very pithy comment. Breakthroughs are only breakthroughs in hindsight. False positives and negatives abound in breakthrough declarations.

Empericially, CNNs generalize better on image recognition tasks than hand built features. This comment doesn't make much sense and is needlessly obtuse in the face of progress, tbh.

Thats a great answer but decidedly off topic. He asked a very specific question and you gave a completely different answer. HN, this shouldn't be voted up here. Our biases are showing by doing so.