I've found a curious variety of AI videos: releases of motorbikes that don't exist, brought by Youtube algorithm. I guess the point is just clicks or ads money. Some comments, by bots or gullible users.
No longer seen recently, not sure it's because YT's crackdown or me repeteadly clicking "not recommend me this channel" (there're a handful)
From what I've seen YT takes "Don't show me this channel again" very seriously but the effect appears to be limited just to you. It would be very silly for YT to fail to enforce that preference as a user who is willing to go through an annoyingly multi-step flow to express their displeasure is on who would never monetarily engage in the content anyways - but neither it (nor the reporting system) seem to have a significant impact on the visibility of that content to others since both are often used for brigading or personal preference.
I do that for a different reason: my self image. Fear of retribution and performance, not so much. Should I behave like a rude person to achieve a little better answers? Fuck that shit!
I love this angle as people learn how to interact with LLMs. Doesn't matter what the LLM is, we are still people and I think there are consequences to shoveling rudeness at a thing that talks to you like another person!
I had a pretty weird interview with this crazy french guy that after a couple of minutes, started acting like a telepreacher and demanding passion or something.
But the most frustrating one was with an attractive smiling girl that praised the founder as a genius, dismissed my experience and refused to talk money. She said the next step was a "group dynamics" with the team. I said no thanks. Cult.
In general, I get the job when I reach the technical guy. Except that time that, after being approved by the technical lead, I had a chat with the dept head, that asked some inane what are your hobbies questions and rejected me, really because of too high salary. Later the same company reached me, when he was replaced.
I wonder if anyone has made a physical galactic orrery.
Maybe it's harder than it seems. Does a definite galactic plane even exist? The ecliptic is defined by Earth's orbit, not a mean of all the planets. IIRC Sun's rotation plane is not aligned, not should it matter.
If there's a way to measure galactic plane, independently of Sun's orbit around the galaxy center (that also seems difficult to determine) it would involve measuring positions and trajectories of many very distant objects.
Yes, an example is "Local stellar kinematics from Hipparcos data" [0]. Afaict: stars have color (red or blue shift) which represents relative motion; Hipparcos is a large large dataset from an eponymous satellite; fancy math determines relative motion based on position and inferred distance.
I believe such data exists--examine the movement of all galactic objects you can. That will give you a center of mass, the galactic plane is the plane such as to minimize the total distance from objects to the plane.
My pet realization: most of the power increase has been spent on graphics at an ever growing resolution, including in resolution not only the number of pixels, that's a squared number, but also color depth and FPS.
Dealing with graphics has shadowed how hugely powerful the modern computers are. We're noticing now because of AI.
That said I think programmers do notice the performance outside of AI when they use software that surfaces how fast modern machines are which we do more than most.
I can remember when compiling a Linux kernel was “start it and go watch star gate” now I barely have time to boil the kettle for a cup of tea.
I don't know anyone who supports both ideas at the same time. Are you saying that philosophers do?
Every guy saying that free will doesn't exist is arguing exactly this. Physical causality considered an obstacle to freedom implies that the conscious entity is somehow outside the physical world.
That's backwards. People saying that there's no free will because determinism is implying that human consciousness is outside the physical world. Actually that's what TFA is about and makes a great job explaining it.
My comment was responding to energy123 questioning there are philosophers that are both materialistic and consider human consciousness is "special". The moment you separate consciousness from all the physical processes that support it (and that's what negating "free" will arguing that it's caused by material forces) you're placing it in a different "plane".
That's hardly an unheard-of position, there are many thinkers that fall for this.
That's strange, hard determinists are eliminativists, and eliminativists don't believe in consciousness, but I never saw them speaking about both at the same time.
In case you don't get it: you don't get to set the discussion terms. You can argue all you want yourself, but my point is already made. If you want a list, search for "hard incopatibilism" or "hard determinism" and you get it.
Still never unlocked the mysteries of those TSR programs though.
I made a bunch of those, in TurboPascal. Just needed to save registers (including stack and heap segments) and hook some key combination. One of them was used commercially for installations by a very big company.
Testing was a little prone to spectacular failures. But once the general procedure was debugged, it was easy as pie.
What seems to me is the ads seem less staged and processed than current ones. They're wilder and not as softened as every media are now.
As for people pointing at lifespans for the healthy part, how much of the change is systemic use of anticoagulants? And of course less tobacco, but I wouldn't rush to say people are in much better shape now.
No longer seen recently, not sure it's because YT's crackdown or me repeteadly clicking "not recommend me this channel" (there're a handful)