If that's the case, then why do we go to work on a computer instead of a phone? Oh, wait. A screen. A mouse, a keyboard. Really, if they wanted to, you could simply dock your phone and have that experience if the company was willing to put in the time.
I'm not dreading increasing AI. I firmly believe that LLMs in their current form cannot even achieve AGI. We need to break past barriers like not thinking in tokens and a model having a sense of prediction semi independent of its output.
Truly, even with the current level of AI, we should be concerned how people should learn. This is true of adults, but incredibly important for children. Should we become dependent on these tools to the point where we feel like we can't achieve our day-to-day work?
I find this kind of free-phasing completely ridiculous. Just ask anyone that's had a kidney transfer that did not work out. I'm pretty sure they considered a failure, not just a disappointment.
It's google. They are good at engineering. Not at creating trust. After the bizillionth time they have broken trust, there is no need for benefit of the doubt.
Yeah. Google is an ad business. Their entire motive for getting invested in AI is ad revenue. We're supposed to believe they just... won't turn on the money fountain? After going into the red for their data center investments? Hell nah.
I'd expect this to be something like the Google Ad ID: technically separated from what Google considers personal information, but trivially easy to tie back to an individual person and to other information about that person.
They're continually breaking trust by illegally scraping up the internet to feed to their plagiarism machine, which they are now asking us to trust with more data. It's not a compelling arguement.
Why should there by any reason to look at the above ones? We are talking about this B2C company which effects a lot of our lives. The discussion isn't about that or this. The discussion is about JUST this specific company.
It was not my intent to undercut cryptography as a field or in its use. Consider client side scanning for photos before they're encrypted and uploaded to the cloud. I see no difference AI's future. Content, maybe encrypted, but a form of client-side scanning, or the model itself, will report users.
Biometric authentication, credential checking, blind auctions, threat matching (search zero-day signatures without revealing the vectors), private dna matching or running queries of medical symptoms and health records against databases.
I think the most immediately useful is checking if a username/password hash appears in a leaked database without revealing which account or password hash is being checked.
This kind of attitude is really disrespectful of decades of progress in cryptography. Without even considering homomorphic encryption, classic encryption is specifically designed to make intermediate nodes such as ISP dumb pipes that do not know the contents of communication. The ISP can store your communications on their server however they want.
If you don’t agree with this model, I’m afraid modern cryptography doesn’t have anything to offer.
Even if your files are properly encrypted, if you keep them on, say, Google Drive, then you might lose access to them if your account gets inadvertently blocked.
I think GP is trying to say something along those lines. Not that encryption isn't trustworthy, but that even with homomorphic encryption you still give up autonomy.
That’s not a problem solvable by cryptography. Your ISP can’t read your traffic, but can cut off your traffic. You can use end-to-end encryption to encrypt your files to upload to Google Drive, but Google can choose to delete your files.
You're better off with a single card, like intel arc pro b70 with 32 gigabytes of VRAM unless you need something external. You're going to lose quite a bit of performance over thunderbolt. However, Nvidia still is king for its ecosystem.
If you could get 2x 16GB eGPU in external cases for $1398 vs the Intel B70 for $1199 to $1299 (MicroCenter pricing), some would choose the ease of use of getting the Nvidia solution up and running, over the lower price. Personally I'm rooting for Intel to be stronger in the GPU department.
It can be very exhausting to receive a lot of PRs. especially when they're LLMs. We have to read what people don't often even read themselves. They're often very wordy. Then it hurts all the more when it's wrong.
I've had negative responses to small, isolated submissions that I've heavily QA'd and semi-positive responses to longer ones. I think it has less to do with the "realpolitik" of the code itself and more to do with the maintainer's viewpoints about whether AI as a whole is a positive or negative thing.
I tend to respond quite well to AI-authored or assisted PRs to my project, but to be fair we maybe only get 3-5 PRs in a good month.
I tend to value person-to-person interaction. I've received a lot of purely automated responses, which shows low value to me as a person, and ultimately the project. I'm not disagreeing that code matters, but we're losing person-to-person discourse and the community that comes with it.
Thinking it through a little bit is probably coming from having bounties on a few issues that might be contributing to my negative experience.
reply