Couldn’t adversarial networks be used to continue to improve quality? I guess we could wind up with a bunch of humans in the loop to help guide learning improvements too, seeing as we’ll all be unemployed (sort of joking).
There’s only so much information content that exists on the Internet. There’s a limit to it, and one cannot simply produce more info once that limit is reached, it goes against the entropy so to speak. And then, “garbage in - garbage out”.
In addition, I think we’re living in a huge bubble and are sort of entitled enough to think that Internet = human knowledge. So many jobs and skills are simply not transferable even using human language (and even if they hire an army if “trainers”). This is one of the core problems with the current incarnation of “AI” - tacit knowledge has always been the stumbling block, even back in the expert systems days when everyone was thinking what we’re thinking will happen today.
So until the machines can somehow gain consciousness, autonomous and nimble movement, the will to live and all of the deep levels of the human mind that are outside language, I think we’ll be pretty safe :-) And for now, on all of these parameters they aren’t even close to a cat.
Exactly, AI can regurgitate all the beautiful sunsets it has been trained on. An artist experiences a sunset and is inspired to create things inspired by the feeling of a sunset. These things could be textiles, furniture, abstract art, dessert, any number of functional items the color of the sunset, a short story, a mimi series....The misconception is that creativity is created by studying and copying past creativity. Creativity comes from living experience and is applied thoughout all aspects of our lives. The belief that AI trains the same way humans do is a sad misconception of the human experience.
Right? I think it's just the Silicon Valley again and again trying to push its single-minded vision that computers should be used to "solve" all of our problems. They see everything as a nail with a "problem" to solve with their hammer, and completely disregard that there's life outside their bubble in the SV.
Most stores aren't going to be able to sell you anything with no power, regardless of taking card or cash, because sales need to go into a database via a register, update inventory, etc. Sure a few small family run businesses, maybe restaurants, might be able to take cash, but almost no chains will be able to run and that's most stores in most places.
In Canada, the Rogers network went down in July 2022 for several hours which caused debit card transactions to fail (after the outage, Interac said it was going to add a SECOND network provider - *facepalm*). Many businesses which relied on the Rogers network for credit card transactions were also affected.
"Small business owners were among those hardest hit by the outage, which left them unable to process debit card payments.
Sharif Ahmed, the owner of Plantforsoul plant shop in Toronto's west end, said the outage left him feeling helpless, as he turned away customers who didn't have cash."
Home Depot has a backup generator or battery in order to still allow transactions to go through in the event of a power outage. It even ran the air conditioning. They stored the payments offline until they were able to connect online again.
What I've seen happen more often is that there is a network error and digital payments can't be processed for hours. Digital money relies on a lot more complex infrastructure than just electricity.
In my country it's required for cash registers to have a backup power enough for 48h of outage. We don't get outages that often (probably once a year or so) but the requirement is there.
You really have to double check everything yourself, which sucks if you are weaken.
I was at the hospital last week for a pretty bad condition and my IV was badly set. I told the nurse to change it for 4 days, they kept refusing, trying to adjust it.
Eventually I just told the doctor what was happening, and he said "oh, that's why your readings were messed up, I was wondering why I had to change your drug dose every day".
They changed my IV in the next hours, and my conditions improved overnight.
I discussed that with some doctor and nurse friends, and they all told me to never, ever trust a health practitioner you don't know very well. You need to be very proactive in your treatment, because they are exhausted, have many people to treat in a row and are only humans.
I've looked into pydoit multiple times and I would love to try it. There are a few reasons that make me go back to make (no pun intended!).
* It comes pre-installed on most UNIX operating systems. Yes, macOS ships an older version, but it works in most cases. This makes bootstrapping projects easier.
* I like how simple it's to get started with a Makefile when you just need a few tasks. Although I admit, big Makefiles can become hard to maintain.
I've recently experimented with using Makefiles as an ETL orchestrator, and it's becoming quite messy. I believe pydoit is the perfect replacement candidate. I just haven't had time to try it.
Edit:
Another thing I like about Makefiles is that you can keep the "hackiness" of shell scripts, manipulate the environment [0], etc. I guess you can do the same with other tools, but I find it easier to reason about those useful "hacks" in Makefiles.
> doit core features are quite stable. If there is no recent development, it does NOT mean the project is not being maintained... The project has 100% unit-test code coverage.
Okay, but support stops at Python 3.10. I have nothing against the tool - it looks interesting. But isn’t support of current versions of Python table stakes for a tool like this? How am I, as a potential user of this tool, supposed to interpret the lack of 3.11 support and a last release dated end of last year?
After the chaos of Python 2to3, backwards Python's backwards compatibility has been amazing. The tool is created for developers and claims 100% code coverage. Determining if it works with any specific version of Python would be a trivial exercise of clone the repo, make an venv, and run the tests.
This is something that a dev should do when evaluating a new dependency even when it claims to support the version relevant to you. Sadly, many do not.
Seems like Google is spending way more energy in preventing user to avoid being spied upon by them than they are actually moderating the app store against spywares and malwares.
Aurora wouldn't need to exist if they gave us an easy way to get apps from the Play store without giving control of our entire phone to the worst privacy offenders on earth.
The aurora client is open source, and you can see it fetches directly from the app store.
apkpure is proprietary and store the apk in a intermediary opaque server. So basically they can inject pretty much anything in the packages you install, and it's much harder to check than aurora if they do.
APKs from the google play store are signed by the developer. Apkpure would not be able to change the APKs without resigning the file, something that would be trivially detectable against an authentic APK.
This is no longer true as of 2021. You as a Google Play user with very limited exception (see next paragraph) have no assurance whether you've received the mobile application bundle (.aad) the developer intended you to have, nor are you receiving the same application bundle everyone else in the world receives. Signatures controlled by Google are now used to sign the application bundle sent to each device[2]. It's not quite as bad (yet) as the Apple situation, but not far off.
For a security conscious developer such as Signal who publish an APK (.apk) and signatures publicly[2], a user with a rooted device could theoretically unpack the official application bundle received from the Google Play Store and check the executable code and resources match those in the publicly available APK. Or just not use the Google Play Store and obtain your applications directly from the developer or an intermediary you place more trust in.
It's no longer true that APKs are signed by the developer, but it is still true that it is signed in such a way that a third party APK mirror site could not tamper with the file without being detectable.
Google could have tampered with the file before the mirror site got it, but you can verify that whatever a mirror site is offering was signed by them.
The aurora client is open source, and you can see it fetches directly from the app store.
Am I correct to assume that you have to compile it yourself in order to keep this trust? Otherwise, there's no way to know if the binary being distributed alongside the source fetches from the same place, and we're right back to untrusted apps.
99% of writing is meh, so ChatGPT is not a downgrade.