It does have a dictionary entry though, e.g. "the branch of computer science that deal with writing computer programs that can solve problems creatively”, and I would argue that this definition fits.

The definition “something that lets a computer perform tasks that are thought to require intelligence” depends on the person, and whether they think something required a form of intelligence. Accounting for all variables over a large distance so you hit your target seems like it requires a reasonable amount of intelligence to me.

It is a extremely generic term though, almost like using ‘software package’. It is more often used as a buzzword than something that provides significant clarification about how it works.

Arguably, a smart algorithm that determines parameters is some form of AI, just not an LLM, image generator or other machine learning model.

The differences between surviving, living and thriving can be pretty big.

Rate per distance is not that great of a metric either, though. Increasing distance does not necessarily increase risk equally. A car that drives a long stretch on a highway is unlikely to hit a pedestrian, but inside a city, or on a shared country road this becomes much more likely. Distance travelled would be inflated in this case for the car, and the metrics would end up being much lower. Furthermore, because walking is generally done for short distances, any incident would inflate this rate much more for pedestrians.

You preferably want to have some measure of risk for a single trip. If a trip were to be made by another mode of transport, would it still have occurred? A proxy for this can be the severity: How high is the chance that an incident is fatal there between two modes of transport, given that an incident occurs? You may also wish to account for the likelihood of an interaction. Which also provides another means of improving: what infrastructure was involved? Disentangling two modes of transport makes them less likely to interact.

Sorry for this long rant, but I really dislike rate / distance as a means of normalizing a metric that is meant to indicate the relative safety.

Not quite, actually. It is moreso training recursively on the output without any changes, i.e., Data -> Model A -> Data (generated by Model A) -> Model B -> Data (generated by Model B -> …, that leads to (complete) collapse. A single step like this can still worsen performance notably, though, especially when it makes up the sheer majority of the data. [source]

And if they train using little data, you won’t get anywhere near the chatbots we have now. If they fine-tune an existing model to do as they wish, it would likely have side effects. Like being more likely to introduce security bugs in generated code, generally give incorrect answers to other common sense questions, and so on. [source]

The flute doesn’t make for a good example, as the end user can take it and modify it as they wish, including third party parts.

If we force it: It would be if the manufacturer made it such that all (even third party) parts for These flutes can only be distributed through their store, and they use this restriction to force any third party to comply with additional requirements.

The key problem is isn’t including third party parts, it is actively blocking the usage of third party parts, forcing additional rules (which affect existing markets, like payment processors) upon them, making use of control and market dominance to accomplish this.

The Microsoft case was, in my view, weaker than this case against Apple, but their significant market dominance in the desktop OS market made it such that it was deemed anti-competitive anyways. It probably did not help that web standards suffered greatly when MS was at the helm, and making a competitive compatible browser was nigh impossible: most websites were designed for IE, using IE specific tech, effectively locking users into using IE. Because all users were using IE, developing a website using different tech was effectively useless, as users would, for other websites, end up using IE anyways. As IE was effectively the Windows browser (ignoring the brief period for IE for Mac…), this effectively ensured the Windows dominance too. Note that, without market dominance, websites would not pander specifically to IE, and this specific tie-in would be much less problematic.

In the end, Google ended IE’s reign by using Google Chrome, advertising it using the Google search engine’s reach. But if Microsoft had locked down the OS, like Apple does, and required everything to go through their ‘app store’. I don’t doubt we would have ended up with a similar browser engine restriction that Apple has, with all browsers being effectively a wrapper around the exact same underlying browser.

Why would company A need to accomodate any other “app store” in their product, especially if one of their product’s selling point is how streamlined it is?

Why should Microsoft allow for other browsers to be installed on Windows? Why should Google allow for other search engines being selectable on Android and in Chrome? The reason in all these cases is the same: it is anti-competitive, and creates a monopoly. This results in unfairly high costs to users, where these users are 3rd party software developers or end users. Due to this countries have laws against this.

Companies obviously wouldn’t want to accommodate others in ways that cost them money, but that does not make it morally acceptable from a societal point of view.

Yes, true, but that is assuming:

1. Any potential future improvement solely comes from ingesting more useful data.
2. That the amount of data produced is not ever increasing (even excluding AI slop).
3. No (new) techniques that makes it more efficient in terms of data required to train are published or engineered.
4. No (new) techniques that improve reliability are used, e.g. by specializing it for code auditing specifically.

What the author of the blogpost has shown is that it can find useful issues even now. If you apply this to a codebase, have a human categorize issues by real / fake, and train the thing to make it more likely to generate real issues and less likely to generate false positives, it could still be improved specifically for this application. That does not require nearly as much data as general improvements.

While I agree that improvements are not a given, I wouldn’t assume that it could never happen anymore. Despite these companies effectively exhausting all of the text on the internet, currently improvements are still being made left-right-and-center. If the many billions they are spending improve these models such that we have a fancy new tool for ensuring our software is more safe and secure: great! If it ends up being an endless money pit, and nothing ever comes from it, oh well. I’ll just wait-and-see which of the two will be the case.

Not quite, though. In the blogpost the pentester notes that it found a similar issue (that he overlooked) that occurred elsewhere, in the logoff handler, which the pentester noted and verified when spitting through a number of the reports it generated. Additionally, the pentester noted that the fix it supplied accounted for (and documented) a issue that it accounted for, that his own suggested fix for the issue was (still) susceptible to. This shows that it could be(come) a new tool that allows us to identify issues that are not found with techniques like fuzzing and can even be overlooked by a pentester actively searching for them, never mind a kernel programmer.

Now, these models generate a ton of false positives, which make the signal-to-noise ratio still much higher than what would be preferred. But the fact that a language model can locate and identify these issues at all, even if sporadically, is already orders of magnitude more than what I would have expected initially. I would have expected it to only hallucinate issues, not finding anything that is remotely like an actual security issue. Much like the spam the curl project is experiencing.

It is unclear to me what you are trying to accomplish, do you want to update the elements for where masked?

Polars has essentially replaced Pandas for me. It is MUCH faster (in part due to lazy queries) and uses much less RAM, especially if the query can be streamed. While syntax takes a bit of getting used to at first, it allows me to specify a lot more without having to resort to apply with custom Python functions.

My biggest gripe is that the error messages are significantly less readable due to the high amount of noise: the stacktrace into the query executor does not help with locating my logic error, stringified query does not tell me where in the query things went wrong…

Republicans however also: deport people with a legal right to be in the country, including citizens, without due process. Want to destroy all progress made on issues affecting the LGBTQ+ community. Wish to reduce women’s rights, some including voting rights. Want to abolish the separation between church and state.

Even if there is a close resemblance between the two parties on Gaza, but there are plenty of other issues where they are still incomparable, and ignoring these differences and calling both parties equally bad does not help.

At least the AI runs locally, as opposed to sending everything to someone else’s computer for processing. Local translation in Firefox actually works quite well.

Also, the user experience is also bound to be much better when a manufacturer provides a tested and supported operating system, especially for “non-experts” for whom a terminal is an arcane inscription tablet.

That is only really a good solution for the few that live in the countryside. If sufficiently many people live close enough to one another without a shop, that is a issue that is best solved by improving planning and introducing local shops (reducing the distance all people in the community have to travel).

Add binary compatibility issues to that list: https://jangafx.com/insights/linux-binary-compatibility The moment you need software that is not packaged by your distro you either need to be lucky that whomever compiled it accounted for your setup, or compile it from scratch yourself (if open source and publicly available). Especially with closed source software (like most games) the latter isn’t even an option.

Mattermost does have an Github Repository with a choice of three licenses: MIT (if using versions compiled by them), AGPLv3 (if compiled by you) or an Enterprise license. I would count that as open source.

A more general business management application like Odoo could work?

Don’t forget Minecraft either.

Fair, though I don’t think rallies are a good indicator for enthusiasm in the general voting public. If you have access to polls you may be able to judge things somewhat better (even if polls have their own problems). I like to believe that a politician like Bernie is smart enough to have at least given the option a thought, and figured that running would guarantee a DJT win.

With hindsight, it may be easy to say that it would have been worth a try anyway (given who won in the end…).

Even so, even if he won, it would not be easy to be a president without backing in the US. The only reason DJT is not in prison is support from the other branches of the US government.