“We can’t break the laws and do what we want to build datacenters we couldn’t afford to build anyways, because our debt was about to be below invetment grade, since AI doesn’t even come close to the returns we promised. It’s the Democrats fault!!!”
I feel the same as you, and after reading the article, it doesn’t really prove the strong claims in the title. At least not as a factual conclusion. There is corelation, but the article points out that it is not causation.
“It’s unclear, based on these data, whether AI use is contributing to poor mental health and well-being, or whether students who are already in distress in certain ways are more likely to turn to AI,” Anderson said.
It’s ironic in a way, since one of the dangerous things that drives people to AI is how it confirms a person’s bias.
Surprised Boebert Face
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were empty to begin with.
Cancelled that shit back when they became a platform for right wing grifters.
Sam utilizes 100% of his own asshole, since he talks out of it.
Yes. And “baby elephant” is also a vague term to begin with. I imagine a 1 week old elefant weighs a lot less than a 20 week old one. How long is an elephant considered a baby? I have no idea.
It’s interesting since 0004 is technically just as random as any other lock combination on paper. If you choose a random number between 0000 and 9999, every number has the same chance.
Same with the private key of 4. It was still 47 bytes of 0 and one byte of 4 as storage for P-384.
So if you randomly tested keys, you would take as long to find it on average as any other key.
The problem is that, similar to cracking a number lock, one of the things to check first is weak patterns. This means people on a number lock would start at 0000 and turn one dial. Simlar things happened with the certificates afaik. Someone checked if those certs keys were any low integer and indeed they were.
It’s essentially by design. To keep AI from destabilizing, the way AI is tuned is to essentially ‘go the same safe way’ on similar prompts. LLM models are essentially a giant field of weights for chains of tokens. Prompts are turned into tokens and the closest result is the output. The more room you give it to vary, the more different styles and variation it can express with a propmpt, but it raises the chance of destabilizing the ouput, producing things like additional fingers or complete garbage. It’s tuned to walk the same way to produce something we perceive as “passable” but it comes at the cost of taking away variation, which is why AI art/writing will consistenly converge towards the same narrow style set.
(This explanation is not super accurate. I just tried to convey the jist of it)
This shit can’t even keep a consistent background over 4 comic panels
There was one when amazon did the same. In favor of amazon…
I think the dumbfuck judge said it was merely ‘modification of benefits, so it doesnt count’, or some shit along those lines. This probably the reason why more companies do it now.
The victim blaming is so disgusting. I heard people say shit like “Oh trans people asked for too much”. Too much? Like what? Basic human rights? The right to exist?
They really think that if bullies get what they want they would just stop being bullies.
Yeah, It would have been a lot more surprising if he condemned it.