Re: Fishy
The difference between a Pilchard and a Sardine isn't mere naming though... That would be like proposing just calling every litre a gallon and thinking that it wouldn't mess everything up....
1638 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
I don't think you're being particularly fair to single the EU out for that -- this is a problem with all public sector regulation, really. No goverment body is really able to react quickly enough to deal with changes in the market, and that was all fine 40 years ago, but the speed with which markets appear, evolve and mutate into unrecognisable form is now just blisteringly fast.
Fair point, but then again, there's still a matter of training vs running. Training an AI is a lot more work than running one, and anything you could train on a Pi is not going to need the full power of the Pi, and that's whether or not you have this card in your Pi.
We're back to the days where the devs need a far more powerful computer than the users. To get a model that uses the Hailo to its fullest, you'll need a more powerful machine to train the model, probably with a NVidia 40 series card in it.
Well, with even MS Office now available as a web app, the days of the dedicated PC are numbered. The Hailo kit pushes this further, because if local beef needs to go AI, then users don't really need much at all.
However, the Pi will never be good for training AIs, so developers are going to need PCs still....
More that that, I was actually kind of word that the Pi Foundation were missing the very real possibility that homebrew AI was going to be a new part of the "makerspace" that Raspberry Pi shoots for. The first Pi was leading the curve for makers by putting a computer at a pricepoint where it was competitive with microcontrollers like Arduino on small scale, but not on large scale. The Pi was a useful steeping stone for embedded, because it was easy to use standard tools and just throw extra processing at it to avoid the need to optimise firmware early on.
Now that things are becoming clearer, I can see that AI is still going to need a PC... for training. I think the Foundation are really onto something here, because no-one uses the Pi as their only computer. This means we're going to get geeks using their NVidia megabeast video card for model training, and instead of only being able to use the models on that PC, they'll able to run it on a much smaller thing.
I see no mention of this in the Bootnote itself, but the picture ofDoctor Who in a Starfleet uniform is absolutely fascinating because what I'm seeing is an actor who appears to be a mutual cousin of Peter Capaldi and David Tenant (or maybe if Tenant had a kid with Capaldi's daughter). It's just mind-boggling that the AI could generate family resemblances that way. But logical, I suppose, other than the fact that I don't see Matt Smith or Jodie Whittaker in the mix....
Every single one of "his" ideas is something I read about old mid-20th-century adventure comic annuals I bought in 2nd-hand fayres in the 80s. Vacuum tubes, self-driving cars, big one-piece rockets, rockets for international Earth travel... it was *all* in those books. He must have just been reading the same stuff, and he internalised it as "the future". And now he's mistaking things he saw presented as "the future" as a child as his ideas and vision for a great future.
But there's a reason those things never got beyond kids comics...
No, that's not relative purity, really... it seems a lot like absolute purity to me, because you're doing a one-dimensional measure of "how many impurities does it have", with no concern to what they are.
Water that's swimming with bacteria is relatively purer than water containing nano-plastics from one point of view: the consumer can just boil the bacteria-laden water before they drink it, but there is no consumer tech to remove microplastics.
Companies have not necessarily reduced overall risk -- they have eliminated known problems that have had known solutions for generations, and they've introduced new problems with no known solution.
Yes, but you're glossing over the important part difference between things we have been consuming for multiple generations and things that haven't been used longer than living memory. I think plastic bottles were introduced to the market after WWII.
The implied consent related to selling you a book is that you will use the information within for uses that are common for many people. Finding a new use for it and then saying that it's not infringing because you bought a copy... well that's just rubbish.
Here's a counterpoint:
if I was to build a university programming course leaning heavily on (eg) Kernighan and Ritchie's text, I would be expected to list it as a set text in order that students might buy it. The students might then go on to teach themselves, and it is accepted that there will be similarities been how they were taught and how they go on to teach, but this is an expected result. Crucially, they will forget details of how K&R's Book on C was, and will instead be passing on information based on their internal model of concepts. AI does not, at present, have any model of concepts -- the second L in LLM is for "language".
LLMs create language based on language; humans creat language based on [i]ideas[/i].
I believe that "ideas" are key to the notion of a "creative step".
I suspect that's deliberate, as people were probably changing Team names for their own reference without realising they were changing something on the SharePoint configuration for all team members. I can imagine a few self-defined "clever" wags renaming teams to "*snore*" or "timewasting corporate comms" and getting hauled up for it in the before-times.
Yes, but I'm going to ask a question: what nationality/ethnicity are you?
Would you be OK with a product taking on the name of your own identity group even though it contained no workers of the given group?
Who would think it OK for a group of Scots to make "English mustard" in a facility in Scotland? Or for a group of English people living in England to open a farm rearing purported "Scotch beef"?
I would agree, but then again the language is called "Calculus of constructions" and not "Calculus des constructions". If the name is basically English, you really have to consider the other things about Anglophone culture.
Et oui: mon français est superbe ; ainsi j’ai bien sûr le droit de dire ce que je viens d‘écrire.
Thunderf00t may be an irritating blowhard, but he's good with numbers.
Here, he discusses Musk's figures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qGg6wiXoSc&t=620s
Summary: Musk's alleged "costs" seem to be ticket price rather than cost price. Thunderf00t speculates that this is creative accounting aimed at turning it into a massive tax write-down that will be net profit for SpaceX. He also speculates that SpaceX may be in the financial trouble that Musk himself predicted not too long ago...
Hmmm....
" References in this Regulation to the processing of personal data for the
purposes of scientific research (including references to processing for
“scientific research purposes”) are references to processing for the purposes of
any research that can reasonably be described as scientific, whether publicly or
privately funded, including processing for the purposes of technological
development or demonstration, fundamental research or applied research. "
I reckon "technological development or demonstration" gives a very broad definition of "scientific research". Like... writing a website on the origami might even qualify.
" References in this Regulation to the processing of personal data for the
purposes of historical research (including references to processing for
“historical research purposes”) include processing for the purposes of
genealogical research. "
So Ancestry.com is now to be considered on a par with the National Archives/...?
Very disappointed myself.
I'd assumed good faith and thought there was going to be something in the article referring to some reason why the outputs of the project were not going to transfer across languages, but... nothing.
Just a lazy joke.
I thought the Reg was better than that.
Pretty sure it's attested in Middle English literature.
I saw the claim once that scribes were paid by the letter at some point in the Middle Ages, and therefore started adding in silent Es and unnecessary double letters. I wasn't convinced, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility...
Was on a training course at a newly-opened college building. We were sat in a computer room when the ceiling turned into a waterfall. Nobody moved until I shouted something like "electricity... water... GET OUT"
Turns out the boiler room was directly above the computer rooms. Rather stupid (and expensive) mistake.
Or look at it a different way -- all we're talking about is the long overdue shift from plain-text procedural code to a hacky version of declarative programming.
The next generation will hopefully move to true declarative programming with AI procedural code generation in the back end.
Well the point of the term "cloud" was always that the internet is the part of the network you can never know the shape of, hence so it was shown on the network diagrams as a cloud symbol.
When cloud computing started to gain traction, I could not understand why so many companies would use unauditable services.
I was in an IT company that refused to offer cloud services because we insisted our client do due diligence. Vindication came in the form of companies being sued for data loss and being found negligent for failing to do due diligence.
Then the industry decided that maybe cloud computing was bad and just went back to hosted datacentres... but we now called them "clouds".
My spin on that is that the existence of the likes of PanWriter in the form it's in is a failure in software development as a whole. (And therefore not any reflection on or misunderstanding of what you wrote!)
Why isn't it now a straightforward matter to take a full-fat code editor and rebuild it with a few clicks to do only a single one of the million and one tasks it does, and with that, all the now-unnecessary chrome?
I find it baffling how we still struggle with the basics of software development.