Last time my city had a water cutoff due to a broken main, the city hall posted on Twitter (and I think Facebook?) where and when to queue for drinking water sooner and much more often than on any other channels, their own website included.
The NYC subway system now writes, on X, "Customer care has moved to the MTA app, chat with us there 24/7. Get service status, arrival times and more all in one place. Visit MTA.info/apps". The web page with similar data is "MTA.info".
There are MTA data feeds, in General Transit Feed Specification format, for program use. Those are for systems that update maps.
The MTA dumped Twitter/X in 2023 because Twitter/X wanted to charge them for using their API, and the MTA refused. [1] The MTA also said that Twitter/X had too much downtime.
When the MTA first got into social media, the person who took the job demanded a desk in the rail control center, so she could see all the displays and immediately hear about problems. If someone mentioned a problem on Twitter, she'd reply immediately. That was the right idea. Few organizations have the guts to put the control room on social media.
Turing never proposed that test as an actual benchmark of machine intelligence. On the contrary, the whole point of his thesis was that passing the test only shows the capability to pass that test, which only matters as far as we find that capability useful. He was arguing that the concept of intelligence just doesn't apply to studying machines, we should simply talk about what can they do.
A professor at a vocational training degree shared us a VM for a class project. Filled with dozens of porn bookmarks. He eventually realised and stayed after class to delete the VM from every class computer, deleting all the work of classmates who didn't take a backup home.
This prompted the people who lost their work to actually report the porn in revenge.
Off the bat, you said that there shouldn't be expectations of privacy, not just that there currently isn't, which is not the exact same thing.
I've never used company equipment for anything personal beyond a quick Google search, but I'd still like there to be some degree of privacy in case I ever feel pressured to do so, e.g. by a deadline to fill a form.
I've got some heavy reader friends and they keep complaining that many of Spains's fantasy book translations are ridiculously bad and blatantly machine translated now: Senseless terms that require looking up the original to understand, e.g. "fall" translated as in falling when it meant autumn; proper nouns, including character names, sometimes translated sometimes not; and many sentences that mix up the grammatical gender because the machine wasn't given enough context to infer it.
But these publishers don't get punished because they keep licensing popular foreign franchises, which aren't quite fungible, so consumers don't want to miss out and thus don't vote with their wallets.
How is it possible? Even if you just put text to ChatGPT it'll translate it much better than that. And with actually decent harness, the translation should be quite good. Do they even save on tokens by choosing cheapest model or something?
It's impressive how bad it is even for machine translation, I've seen examples. You're imagining them using a good LLM and a decent harness, but I'd bet it looks more like an intern copy-pasting snippets through an LLM or even just Google Translate and cleaning it a bit.
Unfortunately the answer is no. Reading or just owning a book by a certain author can be a matter of fashion or prestige. That allows for really bad work still be published.
Since you can't really go buy the same work translated by a different publisher, voting with your wallet means boycotting it. I agree it would be the right option to punish publishers, but people find it frustrating to miss out on both the work they were hyped for and its fandom; the latter is a really big deal for those deep into reading subcultures.
I know, but really, in the 21st century, aren't there many substitutes for whatever pop-hype we're talking about? Not enough worlds with wizards, or swords, or dragons, or whatever you like?
I remember having more visual thinking until preteen, but then it gradually turned into a monologue and I hate it, because I can tell I got slower at mundane thoughts even if it helps me think through complex stuff.
You can still get a drive that will beat the ethernet connection by a lot for $50.
But also I'd feel weird if I didn't have at least one good flash drive somewhere, so anyone like me would already have it.
I'm going to ignore the part where the USB port described in the article sounds broken. A 100% functioning cable, especially a short one for a drive, is not hard to find.
If you haven't yet got any portable drives in the drawer, chances are high that you rarely need to copy large amount of files around anyway. In which case free tier of cloud sync services would be preferred for the majority of users.
Why? Does TFA rhyme, repeat itself, use archaic language or otherwise looks adversarial? It doesn't, so we can assume Pangram's usual false positive/negative rates apply. Yeah there's a chance it's wrong, and they'll need to catch up to new models, but my instinct can be wrong too and I don't stop using it to filter what I read; at least Pangram's accuracy can be measured.
> Why? Does TFA rhyme, repeat itself, use archaic language or otherwise looks adversarial? It doesn't, so we can assume Pangram's usual false positive/negative rates apply.
No it literally does not apply is the point of the article. Please read what it is about and what it says instead of asking for spoon-feeding.
> but my instinct can be wrong too and I don't stop using it to filter what I read
Again, your instinct is not something that matters to anyone other than you. But you are presenting Pangram as fact and doing on a moral crusade (I WILL NOT READ ANYTHING PANGRAM SAYS AS AI). You can also have an instinct that "THIS IS WRONG" and go on crusade but you will naturally understand your foundation is not solid at all.
Lastly, if your instincts serve you well why are you outsourcing yourself to another instinct? Is it for yourself or to say to others "LOOK AI CONTENT LOOK AI CONTENT!!!"? Is that purely to serve your interests of filtering what you read or are you using it in the wrong way here?
The text you linked simply says that for individual analysis instead of bulk one, there will be false positives. I already acknowledged that, and I still need some filter anyway whether you want me to have one or not. Mistaking your blog posts for an AI under a fairly low false positive rate is a sacrifice I'm willing to make; I'm not grading college students here.
Also, I'm not presenting Pangram as anything, much less said what you just claimed I said. You might be mistaking who you're talking to in this thread, either way you clearly aren't debating in good faith.
Legal would remember to pay the fee for their abandoned works, just in case, while the rest of the company does nil with them. I'd rather address the issue directly and expire the copyright after X years since it was last published.
Then again Disney's old "vault" strategy would counter it, and Nintendo is already toying with it to sell through FOMO. How can it be this hard to make companies keep our digital culture available for sale? It's not even charity.
It's okay if Legal does that. The idea isn't to prevent companies from owning copyrighted works long-term, it's to prevent the waste of abandoned works. There are thousands, if not millions, of works that could be cleanly reused under my proposal.
I don't disagree with the spirit of your argument. I'm just saying that my proposal would be a lot easier to put in practice than anything that hurts companies. The strength of the proposal is exactly that companies will mostly shrug while creating a very clear legal separation of what's "active copyright" and what's an "abandoned work".
By the way, this would also apply to the GPL (and other copyleft licenses).
> and when I asked why it did that even though I expressedly asked it not to
Just be clear, it can't know, and by asking you're just making it roleplay as someone excusing themselves.
It's very unlikely that the choice to remove the comment was driven by an internal monologue based on learned criteria that it can refer to. The sampler most likely picked tokens to remove it while writing the patch, because that's what the statistics modelled, and that's it.
reply