I'd really like to know more about this. Google shows that there are a bunch of people selling this, or similar things like a rainbow Gadsden flag but it's not clear to me who is actually buying them or what their intended message is.
Is it a joke? Maybe they're just trolling everyone?
Do they not know what one or both symbols mean?
Do they actually support the causes behind both symbols? (I saw one post that suggested it might be a different kind of "Southern Pride")
That sounds cute until some rich asshole sets up his own anti-matter reactor to run their own holodecks with content and filters removed. I'm thinking he sets it up on a remote asteroid and invites his other rich asshole friends. Except he secretly records them and uses it to set up a blackmail network.
He'd probably have to have some weird alien name like, Kah-Epstein.
There are a lot of scams around AI and there's a lot of very serious science.
While generative AI gets all the attention there are many other fields of AI that you probably use on a regular basis.
The reason we don't see the rest of the AI iceberg is because it's mostly interesting when you have enormous amounts of data you want to analyze and that doesn't apply to regular people. Most of the valuable AIs (as in they've been proven to make or save a bunch of money) do stuff like inventory optimization, protein expression simulation, anomaly detection, or classification.
It's otherwise a fairly well written article but the title is a bit misleading.
In that context, scare quotes usually mean that generative AI was trained on someone's work and produced something strikingly similar. That's not what happened here.
This is just regular copyright violations and unethical behavior. The fact that it was an AI company is mostly unrelated to their breaches. The author covers 3 major complaints and only one of them even mentions AI and the complaint isn't about what the AI did it's about what was done with the result. As far as I know the APL2.0 itself isn't copyrighted and nobody cares if you copy or alter the license itself. The problem is that you can't just remove the APL2.0 from some work it's attached to.
Well shoot. I hadn't even included the problem that latinum can't be replicated.
We'd probably need a very similar model.
Replicators don't replaces services, just goods. Most people aren't willing to render services for free.
The replicators also use enormous amounts of energy. They're basically nukes in reverse. They "solve" this problem with anti-matter but the anti-matter reaction seems to require trilithium. And as we know from several episodes, trilithium is definitely not an unlimited resources.
The economy might not involve anyone hand-making widgets but there would be a lot of economics around acquiring, processing and distributing trilithium.
It isn't even the root of the indo-european languages and the Indo-European languages are just one of many language families around the world.
Source I am from Austria. :)
That's inherent to the idea of theft. We judge thieves based on their thefts.
It's irrelevant if they also happen to have a bunch of stuff they didn't steal.
A few stolen artifacts corrupt the legitimacy of the entire exhibit.
It's not deeply rigorous but it's correct reasoning in principal.
The scientific and statistical standard interpretation of the null hypothesis is that there's no relationship between the variables in question. It's up to the researcher to establish an evidence based argument that the null hypothesis should be rejected in favor of some alternative.
When we "fail to reject" the null hypothesis, we haven't proved it's true, we just continue to assume it is until someone proves otherwise.
In this case, the alternate hypothesis is that there's a correlation between incarceration and crime rates and the null is that no such correlation exists.
As of now, the bulk of the research has failed to find such a relationship https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=correlation+incarceration+crime&btnG=
I don't think it would even have to go that far.
It's mostly that Harris needs to be able to present credible red lines. Right now, the perception is that Israel can get away with absolutely anything.
Anything to break that perception it might be enough. A light version might be something like, "Every time X happens, we'll delay weapons shipments by a week while we investigate." That's not much and it might not even change Israel's behavior but I suspect that just articulating some policy and sticking to it would be sufficient.
In terms of her affect on the Green party, those numbers make it look like she's fairly run-of-the-mill. Her first one was low and later on she posted numbers similar to more famous candidates.
I did a quick search on where those candidates are and it seems that many of potential Green party candidates are in swing states. It also looks like many of them are specifically siding with them because of their stance on Gaza.
That suggests that she's just fine for the Greens and is likely even helping them. She's a problem for Democrats because there's an assumption that those voters would switch to the Democratic ticket if they don't vote Green.
Haha. Maybe.
I doubt the VCs will provide much followup funding if they can't control the code base but weirder things have happened.