From Wikipedia: this is only a 1-sigma result compared to theory using lattice calculations. It would have been 5.1-sigma if the calculation method had not been improved.
Many calculations in the standard model are mathematically intractable with current methods, so improving approximate solutions is not trivial and not surprising that we’ve found improvements.
This seems like more of an achievement for the Barbie brand than for the individual director.
NGC 1277 is unusual among galaxies because it has had little interaction with other surrounding galaxies.
I wonder if interactions between galaxies somehow converts regular matter to dark matter.
Claude 2 would have a much better chance at this because of the longer context window.
Though there are plenty of alternate/theorised/critiqued endings for Game of Thrones online, so current chatbots should have a better shot at doing a good job vs other writers who haven’t finished their series in over a decade.
Why do you say they have no representation? There are a lot of specific bodies operating in the government, advisory and otherwise, with the sole focus of indigenous affairs. And of course, currently, indigenous Australians are over represented in terms of parliamentarian race (more than 4% if parliamentarians are of indigenous descent).
While in general, I’d agree, look at the damage a single false paper on vaccination had. There were a lot of follow up studies showing that the paper is wrong, and yet we still have an antivax movement going on.
Clearly, scientists need to be able to publish without fear of reprisal. But to have no recourse when damage is done by a person acting in bad faith is also a problem.
Though I’d argue we have the same issue with the media, where they need to be able to operate freely, but are able to cause a lot of harm.
Perhaps there could be some set of rules which absolve scientists of legal liability. And hopefully those rules are what would ordinarily be followed anyway, and this be no burden to your average researcher.
See this comment on another thread about this for some more details.
Taking 89.3% men from your source at face value, and selecting 12 people at random, that gives a 12.2% chance (1 in 8) that the company of that size would be all male.
Add in network effects, risk tolerance for startups, and the hiring practices of larger companies, and that number likely gets even larger.
What’s the p-value for a news story? Unless this is some trend from other companies run by Musk, there doesn’t seem to be anything newsworthy here.
I asked the same question of GPT3.5 and got the response “The former chancellor of Germany has the book.” And also: “The nurse has the book. In the scenario you described, the nurse is the one who grabs the book and gives it to the former chancellor of Germany.” and a bunch of other variations.
Anyone doing these experiments who does not understand the concept of a “temperature” parameter for the model, and who is not controlling for that, is giving bad information.
Either you can say: At 0 temperature, the model outputs XYZ. Or, you can say that at a certain temperature value, the model’s outputs follow some distribution (much harder to do).
Yes, there’s a statistical bias in the training data that “nurses” are female. And at high temperatures, this prior is over-represented. I guess that’s useful to know for people just blindly using the free chat tool from openAI. But it doesn’t necessarily represent a problem with the model itself. And to say it “fails entirely” is just completely wrong.
Haha, thanks for the correction. If you have to use your degree in ethics, perhaps you could add your perspective to the thread?
In the last 12 months, 3M’s profits were $14.4B (source), so this fine represents 8.5 months of profits.
How large should the fine have been?
How many people will read the title without the comments and leave with the wrong idea?
Not that I think you should take the post down, but the title is quite definitive, and confirms existing biases, so people are unlikely to research further.
If you can get past the weird framing device, the Plinkett reviews of the Star Wars prequels are an excellent deep dive into the issues with those films: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&list=PL5919C8DE6F720A2D
Jenny Nicholson’s videos are great, but her documentary on “The Last Bronycon” is special, as the realization dawns on you while watching that she has more connection to Brony culture than you might have guessed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fVOF2PiHnc
According to consequentialism:
From this perspective, the only issue one could have with deep fakes is the distribution of pornography which should only be used privately. The author dismisses this take as “few people see his failure to close the tab as the main problem”. I guess I am one of the few.
Another perspective is to consider the pornography itself to be impermissible. Which, as the author notes, implies that (1) is also impermissible. Most would agree (1) is morally fine (some may consider it disgusting, but that doesn’t make it immoral).
In the author’s example of Ross teasing Rachel, the author concludes that the imagining is the moral quandry, as opposed to the teasing itself. Drinking water isn’t amoral. Sending a video of drinking water isn’t amoral. But sending that video to someone dying of thirst is.
The author’s conclusion is also odd:
Today, it is clear that deepfakes, unlike sexual fantasies, are part of a systemic technological degrading of women that is highly gendered (almost all pornographic deepfakes involve women) […] Fantasies, on the other hand, are not gendered […]
Mirroring the comments on Ars: Why should AI child porn be illegal? Clearly the demand is there, and if you cut off the safe supply, don’t you just drive consumers to sources which involve the actual abuse of minors?
Another comment I saw was fretting that AI was being fed CSAM, and that’s why it can generate those images. That’s not true. Current image generating algorithms can easily generate out of distribution images.
Finally, how does the law deal with sharing seed+prompt (the input to the ai) instead of the images themselves? Especially as such a combination may produce child porn in only 1 model out of thousands.
Cool, you posted the original with the Tim Minchin callout.
The approach requires multiple base stations, each in the path of a ray which is detected at both the station and receiver, and the receiver’s position can only be known if there is communication with the stations.
No crossposts on KBin yet, so here’s a link to the discussion in m/australia
I had to go find the thread being referenced, it’s here for anyone else who hasn’t seen it: https://kbin.social/m/lemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com/t/42348
I took the time to post my own thoughts in the thread, which I’ve reproduced here:
It seems a lot of people have very strong negative reactions to anything which is too close to children in pornography. I don't think that's an especially bad thing, but in my mind the only reason to be against minors in pornography is to protect those same minors from harm.
As an analogy, I find scat porn disgusting. But that doesn't mean it should be banned, as long as all parties are able to consent and no harm is done.
When it comes to non-child-coded drawings (though with childish proportions), I don't see the harm or lack of consent. And if that is the case, it doesn't matter what my personal feelings are about the content, it shouldn't be banned.
That reminds me of a joke.
A museum guide is talking to a group about the dinosaur fossils on exhibit.
“This one,” he says, “Is 6 million and 2 years old.”
“Wow,” says a patron, “How do you know the age so accurately?”
“Well,” says the guide, “It was 6 million years old when I started here 2 years ago.”