☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
  • 2.64K Posts
  • 3.1K Comments
Joined 3Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jan 18, 2020

help-circle
rss

True, but you can also create a loose spec that’s good enough. Say you create a test suite around the endpoints to a service, and if tests pass then all is good.





That fact that these models are basically glorified Markov chains without any actual understanding behind them is the biggest limitation. For anything non trivial it’s very easy for dumb mistakes to slip in. Using a float for dealing with money. So it’s easy to produce incidentally working code that’s broken in subtle ways.

That said, I can see programming moving towards wiring specifications and having the AI bang its head against them till stuff works within the given parameters. You can specify formally what the expected inputs/outputs are and put a max energy cost on the solution, and then have the algorithm find one that fits.



Programming today is one of the few industries where the workers own the means of production. However, If ML models become an integral part of the workflow then the workers become dependent on the companies that run these models.







The mask constantly falling off helps people see what the west is all about though.












The part I’m worried about is how long it’s going to be possible to buy hardware that’s not locked down. It’s almost impossible to buy a phone that doesn’t need to be hacked to get root nowadays.



From what I saw, they’re mostly focusing on purging the left from Twitter. It’s gonna turn into Gab the way things are going.



Yeah, the west is becoming rapidly isolated geopolitically and it’s not even self sufficient. I have no idea why anybody would think that US could take on China and come out on top. This further highlights that US regime consists of utter imbeciles.



The idea of US taking on China absolutely deranged in every respect, yet so was the idea that they could use Ukraine as a proxy to take apart Russia. Yet, here we are.




I think they’d love to outlaw general purpose computing. We can already see a preview of what that looks like with how mobile devices work. You don’t have root privileges on the device, and it’s explicitly locked from you. You are only allowed to install software from the official sources, and this software can be wiped remotely from your device if its deemed inappropriate. This is the future of computing that’s being envisioned. The computer just becomes another appliance as opposed to a general purpose computing machine that you yourself can program.



I just want you to acknowledge it. You made a big stink that the source I provided said that NATO is directly involved in the conflict. Yet, US officials say this regarding Iran and you’ve already acknowledge that it’s the same level of involvement. Have the intellectual integrity to admit this.


Please answer the question. How does the US official characterize the involvement of Iran in the war? We’re talking about what the officials of your regime are saying about the matter.



Here is how US officials refer to Iran’s involvement:

Iran is now fully engaged in Russia’s war, the official said. The deepening ties carry liabilities for the Islamic Republic.

Since you agree that the level of involvement is a good comparison, then it follows that NATO is in fact a direct participant in the war. Thus the article I linked is making a factually correct statement.


Given that NATO is currently supplying weapons and ammunition, training troops, sending in advisors and mercenaries to this war, it is beyond absurd to claim that the west is not a direct participant in this war. Furthermore, the west claims that Iran is a participant in the war because it is supplying material aid to Russia, and using the same standard the west is too. In fact, Baerbock blurted out this truth just recently. One has to take complete leave of their senses to pretend otherwise. If that’s the best criticism you can come up of the article that really says volumes.


Ah yes, it’s not a US state approved propaganda source. Yet, what do you dispute in that article in specifically?