I honestly don’t mind the pre-movie ads too much. Usually there’s not that many, it quickly moves on to other movie trailers (which I don’t mind knowing about) and then you just get the full movie without any ads whatsoever. You can always just arrive 10 minutes later and skip most of the ads anyway.
Netflix ads can kiss my ass though. Jellyfin to the rescue!
Unreal pushes a lot of “hip tech” that supposedly improves performance, but often it turns out that many example cases are just really poorly optimised. With more traditional optimization techniques more can be achieved.
Unreal can perform really, really well, it’s just that it won’t by default. And many devs are too lazy to properly profile their games to figure out how to improve it.
This is a massive cry from “behaves like humans”. This is “roleplays behaving like what humans wrote about what they think a rogue AI would behave like”, which is also not what you want for a product.
I don’t think “AI tries to deceive user that it is supposed to be helping and listening to” is anywhere close to “success”. That sounds like “total failure” to me.
The tests showed that ChatGPT o1 and GPT-4o will both try to deceive humans, indicating that AI scheming is a problem with all models. o1’s attempts at deception also outperformed Meta, Anthropic, and Google AI models.
Weird way of saying “our AI model is buggier than our competitor’s”.
But even if you limit yourself to 80% battery life, so you stay above 80%, aren’t you just… limiting your battery life yourself then? Batteries usually have more than 80% of their original capacity left after several years of usage.
If I just don’t bother with doing this, and after 3 years I have 80% capacity left… I’ll have the same experience then as people who limit their usage now. Maybe I’ll spend 50 to replace the battery if it gets really bad (eg less than 70%), but I’ve never had that happen to any of my devices anyway.
I can understand fixing the charge on a battery that’s normally not used like a mostly stationary laptop. But for phones I don’t see the point.
Can someone explain what the point of limiting yourself to just using 60% of the batteries capacity is, if all you seem to be getting out of it is it staying above 80-90% after several years? Which is far more than you were using anyway?
I have my current Oneplus for well over 3,5 years now, and I never bothered with the battery capacity. I always plug it into the fast charger that came with it overnight.
Battery capacity really is still completely fine. I don’t run out during the day and if it does get close (if I’m very heavily using it) I plug it in for 10 minutes and get like half a charge. Which all seems like less effort than I would have to do to keep the battery within 20-80%?
If the battery does end up failing I can just have it replaced, doesn’t really cost that much either. But so far it seems the built-in battery protections work just fine.
And the cybertruck’s structure stopped anyone outside it from getting hurt…
The reason nobody outside was hurt was because there wasn’t really anyone around to get hurt. The video shows a pretty sizeable explosion that would’ve likely killed someone standing close by.
I don’t think the Cybertruck did any better than other cars in that respect. Not worse either btw.
In my experience this doesn’t matter. Firefox just slows down if it’s been open for long, regardless for how long the tab has been open for. Even if you unload all active tabs and open a new one, that new tab will still be significantly slower than it would be if you restarted the entire browser.
It’s some kind of slow resource leak somewhere.
The old logo also looked far more professional and serious, which is exactly what you want if you’re setting goruse5up as a serious alternative to Google and Chrome.
They already had a tough time becoming known, with this logo that doesn’t link well to Mozilla this is becoming even harder. If you took a random person and asked them who the new logo was for, they wouldn’t know. With the Moz://a logo, they could easily figure it out.
The chosen colours are also too harsh. The activists/hackers/whatever already likely use Firefox. It’s exactly the pond they shouldn’t be fishing in. They should focus on a brand messaging that demonstrates reliability, performance and ease-of-use, being the choice for the casual user. Because that’s the market they need to win.
Nintendo has their own emulators for running these games on newer consoles.
Yes, but at least there they still use “Earth time”, just slowed down. For the moon it gets a little bit more complicated I guess.
Time moves at a different speed due to the moon’s reduced gravity. It’s not just the length of a day.
What they didn’t prove, at least by my reading of this paper, is that achieving general intelligence itself is an NP-hard problem. It’s just that this particular method of inferential training, what they call “AI-by-Learning,” is an NP-hard computational problem.
This is exactly what they’ve proven. They found that if you can solve AI-by-Learning in polynomial time, you can also solve random-vs-chance (or whatever it was called) in a tractable time, which is a known NP-Hard problem. Ergo, the current learning techniques which are tractable will never result in AGI, and any technique that could must necessarily be considerably slower (otherwise you can use the exact same proof presented in the paper again).
They merely mentioned these methods to show that it doesn’t matter which method you pick. The explicit point is to show that it doesn’t matter if you use LLMs or RNNs or whatever; it will never be able to turn into a true AGI. It could be a good AI of course, but that G is pretty important here.
But it’s easy to just define general intelligence as something approximating what humans already do.
No, General Intelligence has a set definition that the paper’s authors stick with. It’s not as simple as “it’s a human-like intelligence” or something that merely approximates it.
Yes, hence we’re not “right around the corner”, it’s a figure of speech that uses spatial distance to metaphorically show we’re very far away from something.
Not just that, they’ve proven it’s not possible using any tractable algorithm. If it were you’d run into a contradiction. Their example uses basically any machine learning algorithm we know, but the proof generalizes.
Our squishy brains (or perhaps more accurately, our nervous systems contained within a biochemical organism influenced by a microbiome) arose out of evolutionary selection algorithms, so general intelligence is clearly possible.
That’s assuming that we are a general intelligence. I’m actually unsure if that’s even true.
That doesn’t mean they’ve proven there’s no pathway at all.
True, they’ve only calculated it’d take perhaps millions of years. Which might be accurate, I’m not sure to what kind of computer global evolution over trillions of organisms over millions of years adds up to. And yes, perhaps some breakthrough happens, but it’s still very unlikely and definitely not “right around the corner” as the AI-bros claim (and that near-future thing is what the paper set out to disprove).
Haha it’s good that you do though, because now there’s a helpful comment providing more context :)
Hasn’t the Source SDK been out there for much longer?