OP should have specified Brewster’s Millions rules to avoid all the boring answers

UP AND AT THEM

You don’t save to a CD, you burn it

But what if bias was not the reason? What if your face gave genuinely useful clues about your probable performance?

I hate this so much, because spouting statistics is the number one go-to of idiot racists and other bigots trying to justify their prejudices. The whole fucking point is that judging someone’s value someone based on physical attributes outside their control, is fucking evil, and increasing the accuracy of your algorithm only makes it all the more insidious.

The Economist has never been shy to post some questionable kneejerk shit in the past, but this is approaching a low even for them. Not only do they give the concept credibility, but they’re even going out of their way to dishonestly paint it as some sort of progressive boon for the poor.

Define “held accountable”?

If you mean who will pay out if there’s an accident, presumably Waymo will have found an insurer willing to cover them. But if you mean that someone out there must be punished to satisfy some sense of vengeance, then you may want to re-examine your values.

Marrow was interested in “how public institutions decide what’s worth showing, and what happens when something outside that system appears within it”.

Wanky pretentious edgelord crap. It’s obvious what happens when you put up a shit AI-generated poster in a museum without permission. Someone asks the staff why there’s a shit AI-generated poster on the wall and they take it down. Other artists have done the “sneaking something into a gallery” thing way better than this many times before.

Sure, Art is supposed to make you think and react. But art that makes you think “wow that guy completely failed at every aspect of this” is of no value. The true scandal isn’t that he did it, it’s that some dumbfuck at the BBC thought it was worth reporting on.

Just so nobody forgets, North Face planted ads on Wikipedia, and then threw one of their regional managers under the bus when they got caught, as if to claim that it wasn’t really the real company doing it.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/05/29/lets-talk-about-the-north-face-defacing-wikipedia/

“Massive trillion dollar corporations are behaving absolutely fucking atrociously, so we need to do the same” is such an awful take that it makes me doubt the legitimacy of this user account.

You don’t even need to, you just need seven digits of numbers. As password formats go, it’s hella low entropy.

just got a bunch of his friends to agree with him

You mean the International Astronomical Union? I mean at some point if every world-level expert on the topic is saying the same thing, then maybe you need to let go of what Miss Honey told you in first grade.

A few years later: “dang, they knew all along”

I can tolerate that, the one I can’t stand is Netflix shows where the ~dialogue is a mumbled quiet~ and random bits of foley try to blow my speakers out.

It makes it especially noticeable just how dodgy a lot of foley/sound editing work is, eg when someone throwing a punch and missing still goes WHOOSH at the same volume they use for gunshots. There’s YA shows now where even the camera panning gets a sound effect ffs

You don’t even need to reject the applicability of Gödel, because there’s no proof that our universe doesn’t include a bunch of undecidable things tucked away in the margins. Jupiter could be filled with complete nonsense for all we know.

Yeah, if you were to ask “do cisgender people like to be noticed?” people would assume you were being facetious.

First, there’s no “somehow magically” about it, the entire logic of the halting problem’s proof relies on being able to set up a contradiction. I’ll agree that returning undecidable doesn’t solve the problem as stated because the problem as stated only allows two responses.

My wider point is that the Halting problem as stated is a purely academic one that’s unlikely to ever cause a problem in any real world scenario. Indeed, the ability to say “I don’t know” to unsolvable questions is a hot topic of ongoing LLM research.

It’s easy to be dismissive because you’re talking from the frame of reference of current LLMs. The article is positing a universal truth about all possible technological advances in future LLMs.

Mathematically you might be able to prove I don’t always (and I’m not convinced of that even; I don’t think there is an inherent contradiction like the one used for the proof of Halting), but the bar for acceptable false positives is sufficiently low and the scenario is such an edge case of an edge case of an edge case, that anyone trying to use the whole principle to argue anything about real-world applications is grasping at straws.

The thing that always bothered me about the Halting Problem is that the proof of it is so thoroughly convoluted and easy to fix (simply add the ability to return “undecidable”) that it seems wanky to try applying it as part of a proof for any kind of real world problem.

(Edit: jfc, fuck me for trying to introduce any kind of technical discussion in a pile-on thread. I wasn’t even trying to cheerlead for LLMs, I just wanted to talk about comp sci)

If money is speech, what is a company “saying” when it donates to both parties?

Yeah I’m with you, because I don’t understand why a “dumbass” would be the speed of light.

Makes more sense for God to measure things in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units