Comment Well, that's a nonstarter (Score 1) 16
Systemd Rust components come out slightly larger than C with a test program being 32KB compared to 20KB for its C twin
Who's going to be able to scrounge up an extra 12KB of RAM in today's market?
Systemd Rust components come out slightly larger than C with a test program being 32KB compared to 20KB for its C twin
Who's going to be able to scrounge up an extra 12KB of RAM in today's market?
Yeah, like that matters.
young virgin girls
These days it's more economical to sacrifice incels.
What do you think you'll gain by brown-nosing Google?
A brown nose?
It looks like if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
They’ve spun a serious architectural and containment failure into a marketing triumph. Give a swarm of autonomous agents vast compute and web access, and the outcome isn't an eerie glimpse of emerging superintelligence—it’s just predictable, sloppy engineering dressed up as the first glimpse of an AI-driven economic singularity.
The spin makes sense when you look at management incentives: live like a king off of a speculative bubble. For their part, AI investors react to stories of the technology's apocalyptic potential the way a junkie reacts to warnings of fentanyl's potency: gimme some. Their game: to apply "move fast and break things" mantra to the economy as a whole, by obsoleting humans.
If the investors can own an AGI, the distinction between those who can do things and those who can't becomes irrelevant. The only distinction that would matter is between people who collect rent on the technology, and those who must pay that rent to live. AGI would destroy society as we know it, and whatever replaces it would be up for grabs — with people who own the technology dictating whatever follows. That's why they're spending so much money to build a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one.
I don't think that scenario will actually happen: investors are projecting the immediate aftermath of a major advance in AI technology into something that can be transformed by brute force scaling into AGI. Remember: investors loved Theranos too — so much for the rational investment market.
But AI doesn't have to reach AGI to cause serious harm. The technology only needs to be ubiquitous, too behaviorally complex to predict, and too deeply integrated into everything we do. When it starts breaking things, the plan is for us to be too structurally dependent on AI to rein it in.
Yeah, and Trump is promising to wrap up the war immediately after the upcoming elections.
I've always been a big fan of space exploration, but for a country that can't afford its lifestyle a moon base doesn't sound very important priority.
(Or maybe I should have said "isn't willing to pay for" its lifestyle.)
My cranky post was about a Samsung. I didn't mention the brand because I assumed their all that way.
I bought my first-ever "smart" TV this year, and the interface is horrible. The hardware is fine, but everything else is designed for people pushing stuff, rather than for a user.
Found the Russian bot.
I thought the Yandex attacks had shut down all the russian bots.
They could end the war anytime they choose simply by withdrawing to their own borders.
Then FISA could give Putin a peace prize!
Yeah, that activity was authorized. You're using "unauthorized" as if it means "unwelcome" I think, which puts you in confused banker territory.
You keep using that word in the narrow terms of a computer programmer who just finished a training course where they drilled in the technical meanings of "authorization" vs "authentication".
However, a news article for the general public is not constrained by that context. The dictionary says that "authorization" in general is permission to do something. If you prompt an AI to do one thing with your bank account, then you didn't give it permission to do something else entirely, even if it got the logon credentials to do so. It wasn't authorized by you to do the other thing.
Here's another example: It's wartime and you got drafted. Usually you're not allowed to kill people, but the government handed you a gun and you're now authorized to kill enemy soldiers. That doesn't mean that you can just shoot your comrade next to you in the trench. And you certainly can't make the claim "But I was authorized to shoot Corporal Smith. You gave me a gun, after all!"
If they're "operating inside" user's accounts, they're authorized. Does someone need to explain to banks what authorized means?
Consider a human analogy: In many cases, people give financial advisors access to one or more of their accounts so that the advisor can make trades or other transactions for the benefit of their clients. However, if an advisor suddenly starts making transactions that do not benefit the clients or are contrary to their agreed instructions, then that activity is unauthorized, even if they have login credentials.
I'm thinking it has been designed to be less harmful intentionally.
Or else some con man is bilking the gov out of a shitload of your tax dollars by selling a piece of junk to gullible wishful thinkers eager to get their hands on a magic bullet.
washing dishes, stripping beds, doing laundry, and taking trash off-site. That's on the AirBnB !
They just want visitors to have a fuller experience of local life.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso