I’m on the lookout for more models like this
Here’s a recent one where the quality is pretty good: f-lite. They say, “The models were trained on Freepik’s internal dataset comprising approximately 80 million copyright-safe images.”
Shankar Sivarajan
Karma: 1,243
I really like the title of this post!
two students did that stronger version in one or two days.
I believe this was just a call to PimEyes.
Yes! Here’s a cool example of precisely what you’re describing used in practice: Lavarand.
What you’re describing is not really different in principle from using specialized hardware like GPUs for rendering polygons instead of running everything on the same general CPUs. There are ASICs for hashing (used for Bitcoin mining), FGPAs (real-time signal processing, I think), and of course, TPUs for AI inference. And with cloud-computing, would you even know if your computation was actually being done with different physics than you thought?
If we’re doing our utmost to avoid creating them, then the likelihood of having to destroy one is minimal
This is an unwarranted assumption about the effectiveness of your preventative policies. It’s perfectly plausible that your only enforcement capability is after-the-fact destruction.
No, if one does not “approve of destroying self-aware AIs,” the incentives you would create are first to try to stop them being created, yes, but after they’re created (or when it seems inevitable that they are), to stop you from destroying them.
If you like slavery analogies, what you’re proposing is the equivalent of a policy that to ensure there are no slaves in the country, any slaves found within the borders be immediately gassed/thrown into a shredder. Do you believe the only reasons any self-proclaimed abolitionists would oppose this policy to be that they secretly wanted slavery after all?
apocryphal transgender mice
True: whitehouse.gov.
Sure, this is a mainstream enough observation that I’m gonna point you to Ezra Klein et al’s new book, Abundance. My ideal solution involves much less government action beyond getting rid of the imposed rules, and would go significantly further in deregulation (delenda FDA, for example), but I agree with most of the problems he lists.
These regulations, and thousands like them, were never intended to be implemented.
In America, the equivalent stupid rules actually are enforced, which makes them much worse: they would be less harmful if the institutions were as dysfunctional as those of the post-Soviet Eastern Europe in your post. Increasing levels of corruption[1] drastically, and making it a cultural norm, would ameliorate this, and might be almost as effective as abolishing the agencies that make the regulations while being less easily reversed.
- ^
Which I like to call “the people’s deregulation.”
- ^
Pleasure and pain of living beings matter because they are a proxy for that being’s evolutionary fitness.
This just moves the question sideways. Why should I care about an unrelated[1] organism’s evolutionary fitness?
Also, what does this “evolutionary ethics” framework say about enslaving and raping the women of unrelated[1] tribes? Traditionally that wouldn’t decrease their reproductive chances (except in the maladaptive case of using contraceptives, of course).
- ^
Or so distantly related that one can reasonably approximate it to be so, as you yourself do with leopards later in the thread.
- ^
Not quite what you asked, but I found this video visualizing Lagrange multipliers quite helpful. Plausibly it’ll help clarify Euler–Lagrange as well.
Your units question is easy: you get the same dimensionless quantities whatever units you choose. Instead of thinking of units as dimensions, I’d think of them as basis vectors in a five-dimensional space (length, mass, time, current, temperature[1]): you should have exactly five of them, and they need to be “linearly” independent, but beyond that, you can choose any set you like: you could instead have something like the natural units of (speed, gravitationality[2], angular momentum, entropy, charge). In this conception, this 5D space is fundamental: you need at least five dimensions (the ones spanned by c, G, h, k and e), and if you want more, you need to find some new as-yet-unknown independent dimension (maybe baryon/lepton number counts?).
- ^
Of the seven SI units, the other two are Candela, which is some “human visual perception” bullshit masquerading as fundamental, and amount of stuff/Avogadro’s constant, which I don’t think meaningfully constitutes a “dimension.”
- ^
ykwim: something with the units of G. If you don’t like this, just choose mass instead.
- ^
think of df/dx as having “the type of f”/”the type of x”
I expect you learned calculus the wrong way, in a math class instead of in physics. That’s the point the notation, and the key reason it’s an improvement over something like or !
I read the longer article you linked at the end. Never mind, I hadn’t realized this work is meant to make your case that “it’s time to put some brakes on the porn business.” Reposting my own comment about policy papers in a different context (bioterrorism from open AI[1]):
a “policy paper” is essentially a longer, LaTeXed version of a protest sign, intended to be something sympathetic congressmen can wave around while bloviating about “trusting the Science!” It’s not meant to be true.
- ^
Not to be confused with the duplicitously-named OpenAI.
- ^
I agree embedding the titles into a LLM’s latent space is a sound technique, and that it lets you measure shifts in title content in an objective way, but your conclusion that it’s becoming “extreme” seems like editorializing. In particular, you lumping in fauxcest with rape and torture as “sexual violence” strikes me as, … well, I’d say bizarre, but at the very least, subjective.
You could just as well conclude that a shift from “lonely housewife fucks handyman/delivery boy” to “help me, stepbro, I’m stuck in the washing machine” signifies a trend towards lighthearted whimsy.
Britain has problems with state capacity,
If the state regularly exercises its ability to arrest people for posting jokes online they didn’t like, I’d say it had plenty of capacity, and your complaint is more that it exercises it differently than you wish.
It shouldn’t be too surprising: until very recently, it was standard practice for one of the two major political parties to have their agencies staffed almost entirely by “independent, non-partisan experts” who openly loathed them and actively worked to sabotage their agenda, so publicly pledging support to the other party wouldn’t hurt your career if they lost, and could help if they won.
I love the jumbled version of Siddhartha’s story in your opening. For narrative purposes, I’d just add you seeing the first three of the Four Sights (an old man, a sick man, and a dead man) without any kind mental anguish before the breakfast with your toddlers that made you walk away from the Bodhi tree and renounce meditation and “enlightment.”
she’s disqualified under “Are they truth seeking?”
I think having so high a bar for intellectual honesty below which everyone is equally disqualified isn’t addressing the question in the right spirit.
This proves too much. If you consistently require there be no “serious personal and professional consequences” before you trust a source, you’d have to dismiss almost all of them.
And outside the US, statements the government finds offensive often run the risk of criminal prosecution as well. The existence of “stable rule of law” doesn’t preclude this.