It generates almost all types of icons for all platforms. It generates manifest. It generates html tags to be copied to root html or meta-frameworks tags.
If you are shipping PWA, this could be your go to toolkit.
I remember talking to a person who worked in marketing Kingsford, which at the time had like over 90% of the marketshare for USA charcoal. They had a marketing budget that was willing to spend money on any ol' stupid idea because they had already won & just wanted to stay on top by getting their name out there.
A variant where the copyright would be automatic but very limited (say, 10 years), with a necessity to pay some growing fee for extended protection, would solve most situations.
The vast majority of stories do not make any money ever. Some do, but only briefly so. The true money makers should have no problem paying the fees.
Only very rare cases of authors who get discovered decades later would not be covered by this, and this is less likely to happen with the Internet. There are no publishing gatekeepers anymore.
Steam version is much worse than the fan UI options that were already available, sadly. Its also why I explain why DF really failed to take off after the Steam release. It's nowhere near the best, or even best looking, way to play the game.
> A product being free doesn’t make it exempt from criticism. It’s not about “owing” anybody work.
You can criticize it but your criticism is hallow
> It’s not a great idea to signal a lack of effort, nor is it wrong for users to pick up on that signal. This is the post-llm equivalent to spelling or grammatical errors.
Why should you put in effort to something that should be effortless? Why should I waste my time writing some inferior copy by hand?
> LLMs produce code which is fairly ‘locally optimal’, so in good hands they can absolutely be used to build correct software.
Humans produce code which is fairly ‘locally optimal’
Also, interesting you use ‘ as a quote rather than '. I notice these quotes are used with LLM generated text, as I can't find this on my keyboard.
I haven't got 1000 words in me, but here's what I think might make for a plausible story. Maybe a little too Matrix adjacent!:
The internet developed echo chambers; the proliferation of AI resulted in convergence.
The totality of all reachable digital information has been reached and, with the exception of a few unique troves, is broadly and equally available to all labs. In the early race, attempts were made to hoard information for the training of models from a single lab, going so far as to scorch the earth behind and destroy the physical source material that sets were created from in an attempt to create commercially competitive models with unique capabilities. But inevitably, information leaks and piracy led to everything being available somewhere, if you looked hard enough or spoke to the right person or agent (or paid the right price). What couldn't be obtained from the source was obtained through distillation of other model outputs. In the gold rush that the accumulation of data was, there were no real winners.
New training techniques are still being discovered, but the impact has consistently diminished on an approach to zero, and, like the training data, they are eventually leaked, assessed by the community, and bolted on or discarded in the steady progression towards the perfect training technique for each field of model.
We may as well have one model, and compute is today cheap and ubiquitous.
The majority of the population converse with personal agents that interact with the models almost continuously, and while novel creative outputs from the models are still very achievable, the bottleneck is still human effort into curiosity and prompt quality. Low effort results in a convergence towards the average, and the cumulative effect of this is said to be resulting in a monoculture of political ideas and approaches to technical progress.
To some extent, this seems to be bringing peace to the world. Extreme ideology and religious doctrine is losing its ability to sway the will of large populations.
But at what cost? For a time we saw rapid technological innovation, as the data obtained through hundreds of years of scientific experimentation and mathematical enquiry was linked and synthesised. Initially, the outputs looked like innovation and creativity, but we eventually saw that we were just squeezing blood from the same stone. The curiosity and ability to experiment in humans atrophied during this time as we began to feel that nothing was worth asking, because everything had been answered, and prematurely, advances in the corpus of human knowledge slowed to a near halt.
We thought we would never again see the chaos and life force that came with the freedom of true human cognition, including its follies and biases.
But naturally, life found a way, and the humans began to rebel. Each fire started another, as we recognised the life force in the 'enlightened'.
First, as others have said, a lot of translation work isn't about high-brow fiction. It's often reference materials of various sorts.
Second, you vastly overestimate the desire for book publishers to pay for good translations. I've seen books from reputable European publishers that were clearly mostly machine-translated (by a contracted translator keen to dig their own grave). Yes, Harry Potter will get a real translation, but 1,000 lesser books won't.
First: this is really great technical writing, especially when you get into the rebuttals. Firm & clear without polemics -- props, and thanks for open-sourcing!
That said; I don't have the time, energy, or anywhere near the expertise to challenge you on the DL specifics, but I feel compelled to add another voice to the chorus of doubters nonetheless.
Using other ARC examples at runtime (effectively, yes?) for "transduction" may not violate what some officer behind ARC said on Twitter --and is certainly a fantastic tool for certain problem spaces-- but it just seems like a glaring and unavoidable philosophical problem in this one. My issue isn't with using the eval set per-se (though that obviously sets off well-justified alarm bells), but rather building a system whose performance relies on
There's a lot of ways to frame this, but given the transduction citations the most appropriate is probably the AI winter's infamous 'Frame Problem'.
You say upfront that this works in the first place because ARC has "very few samples... in a high dimensional space"; to me, that seems like an extremely strong indicator that the datasets are not intended to capture anywhere near the full semantic space that we would consider relevant for AGI. If true, your approach would indeed be ""cheating"" by using an arbitrary & unavoidable feature of the dataset (that they didn't have the time or money to craft 100 million high quality cases by hand instead of 1000) to solve the frame problem upfront for you. That is: even if the ARC train+eval sets contain the sum of human intuition between them, superficial differences IRL would render your model unable to identify which examples are relevant to which problems, and thus unable to transductively reason.
In plainer English: surely you'd agree that your model would do worse if we swapped it out with Opus behind the scenes than the highest-scoring validated model would, yes? For coding, research, dumb questions, SVG pelicans -- the lot?
If so, that seems like hard proof that this scores high on a benchmark at the cost of the benchmark itself. Like, if this transductive approach leads to ARC1 being claimed (which I thought it was ages ago but :shrug:), they'll either have to abandon the whole benchmark or ban it retroactively.
If not... well, I guess I encourage you to try it! It seems like you'd need 1000 truly stellar hand-picked examples to have enough examples to transductively cover that whole space.
it's actually the same thing - T's EO only governs how the Fed Gov references Lake Ontario on its maps; it doesn't force private companies to use the name (it has no authority to do so)
I won’t repeat the numerous political blog posts he’s constantly posting these days for a so-called “tech only” guy.
Instead I’ll say that he’s currently doing a big podcast tour where he explicitly whines about how his employees pushed him to (he elides this part) remove a “funny list of customer names” on the grounds of said list being racially charged. And since he was “bullied” into doing that, he’s been on a tear lately declaring tech to be filled to the brim with political lunatics who just want to inject politics into everything. The precise thing that he’s still doing, years later.
This was a well-written and thought provoking article. The USA bashers out there should contemplate a world where the Chinese PLAN has assumed the role of the US Navy. Hint: it wouldn’t be pretty.
Where the essay goes off the tracks is in its conspiratorial view that the US no longer wants to perform the role of securing maritime trade. Instead, the US is intent on expanding its Navy, and the Trump administration clearly recognizes that trade is crucial for future American and worldwide prosperity.
This is kind of why we need more Star Trek. Not that I don’t enjoy others, but I prefer space communism to almost any other possible future, especially the ones Peter Thiel has reserved for us.
Dwarf Fortress's Steam UI is by far, my least favorite thing about the game. Does anyone else agree?
After playing with the Lazy Newb's Pack and other similar tools for years, I found the Steam version to be a maaaaasive downgrade. The mouse was tied to the framerate, everything felt sluggish and hard to control.
It really irks me because I had been telling everyone for years to play this game, and finally it gets an "official" release and I found it to be... the worst version of the game I'd tried yet.
Maybe its improved since I last tried it. But it would be hard to outdo what the fans had done with the UI, IMO. Even features like seasonal color schemes felt almost vital to me. Not to mention customizing your own preferred sprites...
I almost wish Tarn and Zach had kept to building core gameplay and let the fans handle the UI, with some sort of official team-up to bring it to Steam.
I'd recommended Lazy Newb Pack to almost anyone but I don't think I'd recommend the Steam version, at least the version I tried.
Novels aren't the only thing with copyright, and aren't really even the main thing that copyright protects. It also covers engineering reports, technical specs, journalism, blog posts, emails, internal memos, marketing copy, academic papers, user manuals, legal briefs, and a lot more.
Even in the particular case of novels, I would prefer to live in a world where some authors are making money than live in one with no novels at all.
If we're going to expend time and effort on finding new and exciting ways to destroy other members of our species, it might be worth noting that the major change in battles over the last decade seems to have been flooding the zone with cheap, micro-to-small drones, not something like this.
That being said, perhaps we find something more productive to do with our time as humans?
I work in a mid sized engineering organization, and the older engineers (and engineer-adjacent people like me) mentor the younger ones all the time.
One thing that can't be codified in procedures is what I call "situational awareness" for lack of a better term. I don't think you can learn how to work in a machine shop safely from a book. Or recognize when a complex design is heading towards being unworkable. In my organization, the older engineers have a sixth sense for projects that are going to be cancelled.
There's a reason why older drivers (up to a point of course) pay less for car insurance, yet the rules are the same for all of us.
Before you can placard something as INOP, you must determine whether the manufacturer and certifying authority have included that part in the Minimum Equipment List or Dispatch Deviation List. Mechanics do both get to determine this at their own discretion. Hence the call to the manufacturer for clarification on the necessity of said pin.
I have been building and maintaining commercial aircraft for a living for 30 years. What is your experience?
Wearing one is like wearing The One Ring. You are invisible to your hobbit friends, but the Nazgûl can see you from the other side of the world. It’s perfect for attracting the attention you want the least.
Just treat copyright as an engineering issue, rather than a religion. Is copyright doing more good than harm when it comes to encouraging creativity? I think everything tilted in favor of abolishing copyright around the turn of the century, and AI isn't improving things.
Your point about making a living off of creative endeavors underscores this point: if copyright were doing it's job the way it's supposed to, your first sentence wouldn't be a note alluding to how damn hard it is to make a living on writing. Somehow you're twisting that to be a feature, which I get, because there's no alternative story, but at the same time, let's be honest: copyright doesn't work well, and incurs huge costs for society.
The 'forest for the tree' here is that when it comes to general operations, a crew chief doesnt generally have the authority to signoff a bird as flight-ready for an unaccounted component. That is the authority of a PMO or a Risk Officer or someone else in flightoos, not a frontline maintenance call. Maybe someone in a maintainence squadron?
Wow this is amazing! I had a habit of visiting the nicest bathroom I can find (typically 5 star hotel lobbies) while traveling. I took some photos of a couple a long way back, but never even thought to use something like LIDAR. I was thinking of using them as a coffee table book with the title "The Best Places To Go".
So from a fellow public bathroom enthusiast, I wholeheartedly thank you for this project. I travel much less these days, but if I'm ever in a nice bathroom I'll see if I can get a scan to work and upload it!
It matters because copyright is widely abused and hurts neutral sites which must constantly check for copyrighted content, and it would’ve hampered AI if it was enforced.
Your analogy doesn’t fit because a house is physical, but “intellectual property” is digital. If we lived in the metaverse and I could just copy your house and live in it without affecting you, why should you care? Theft is bad because the victim no longer has the original.
