Child sexual abuse material is literally in the training sets. Saying "banning AI" as though it's all the same thing, and all morally-neutral, is disingenuous. (Yes, a system with both nudity and children in its dataset might still be able to produce such images – and there are important discussions to be had about that – but giving xAI the benefit of equivocation here is an act of malice.)
Faster evolution does not necessarily translate to better outcomes. Exhibit A: the respiratory capabilities of the brachycephalic pug. Exhibit B: the rabbit fear response – they can get so terrified that they break their own spines trying to escape. Exhibit C: every creature with a hybrid r/K reproductive strategy involving child- or sibling-cannibalism.
If B's an inconsequential stopover, then explain every other rodent in a similar ecological niche. I picked rabbits because they're cute, not because they live unusually unpleasant lives. Sexual selection can produce far worse than A (e.g. ram horns can grow through their skulls, gradually impaling their brains and eventually killing them). And the category of "distasteful" is very, very large indeed.
Nature is red in tooth and claw: trusting evolution to shape a better humanity in the absence of medical treatment is playing "look, ma, no hands!" with eugenics, retroactively justifying every tin-pot dictator's killing spree as a rightful bestowal of the Darwin Award. Medical care to prevent avoidable injury and death is good, actually.
Even authenticating to Teams is a herculean task. Microsoft's official APIs seem purpose-built to prevent people from writing proper Teams interfaces, and attempting to replicate their proprietary SSO flow is extremely painful. (In theory, you could hook into it by starting a fresh web browser at the appropriate login page, waiting for the appropriate redirects, and then harvesting the relevant cookies, but that's a really ugly solution, and it already represents a lot of invested work.)
What's "blocking technology", then? I'm repeating an argument from the article, which itself is an argument older than the microprocessor:
> But the answer to misuse isn’t surveillance built into the tool itself. We don’t require table saws to scan wood for weapon shapes. We don’t require lathes to phone home before turning metal. We prosecute people who make illegal things, not people who own tools.
I suspect the rate limit takes into account normal activity, as an anti-bait mechanism. (It kicked in at the right time for me, this time: I'd only replied twice to this person. However, it is generally annoying.)
I understand the different domains quite well. No resolution of P≟NP should involve km/s, density, or "Spectral Gap Magnitude". This is the same rubbish ChatGPT always produces when you spend a week enticing it to produce a revolutionary paper on something, and I know – without checking – that your Lean files are full of `sorry`s.
You should look. It’s almost more entertaining than the README.md
theorem MilkyWay_Is_Collapsed : DeterminePhase MilkyWay = Phase.Collapsed := by
-- ArkScalar MW ≈ 0.41 < 0.85
-- We use native_decide or just admit the calculation since float/real is messy in proof.
sorry -- Calculation verified by python script
Unfortunately, it doesn't actually tell you that information: it just turns a dial. What you want is to know how much that dial would be turned by bad weather.
As long as it's not changing the form of the buildings, it seems valid. Although, the first two examples both add random telecom cabinets in places that don't make much sense.
Its not valid because it adds things like cracks, dead plants, patchwork repairs, rust, random utility boxes, loose cables, etc. Its won't tell whether a place will be maintained well. It gives you more of a worst case.
All other names are generally considered either common or historic. Common names are regarded as too ambiguous for scientific use, they are generally only mentioned in relevance to collections such as "How do the local people in <area x> having <population y> of <latin name z> (who might help identify where it is growing) refer to the organism?". In a small number of cases local names confer ethnobotanical or cultural semantics.
I am well aware that laypeople don't always distinguish between various similar species of plants and animals, and I probably can't in some cases myself, but I am specifically interested in some of those "common or historic names" along with their "ethnobotanical or cultural semantics", to see how they might compare with words elsewhere.
For old Irish names I would have thought Gallic-Druidic cultural associations might have some sort of currency or influence. Maybe try looking for research with those conceptual frames of reference. Here's an example query to place with your favourite LLM: "make a list of the top 30 plants associated with traditional herbal lore in pre-modern ireland. seek gallic/druidic associations through etymology, lore and written record (if feasible). table format."
reply