nearbuy

8 ms·

151.
by nearbuy 10mo ago
Not an AI company. It's a project by some small charity called Sage. It seems they didn't intend to email anyone and they've now stopped the agent from doing so.
152.
by nearbuy 10mo ago
No one intentionally wanted to thank Rob Pike. As an experiment, some people asked an AI agent to do "random acts of kindness". They didn't specifically know the AI would send emails as a result and have since updated its ins
153.
by nearbuy 10mo ago
> If that really bothers you then write your own on-disk compression format. Why? What are you trying to solve here? You're going to have a hard time making a new format that serves you better than any of the existing formats. The m
154.
by nearbuy 10mo ago
> there's no delay inherent to playing back a recorded sound. There absolutely is. You can decompress compressed audio files when loading so they play immediately, but if you want to keep your mp3 compressed, you get a delay. Games
155.
by nearbuy 10mo ago
Uncompressed audio is typically used for sound effects, while music is compressed. Latency is the primary benefit. Uncompressed audio will play immediately while an mp3 will have a few frames delay. Sounds like gunshots or footsteps are typ
156.
by nearbuy 10mo ago
This is a mischaracterization of the optimization. This isn't a standard optimization that games apply everywhere. It's an optimization for spinning disks that some games apply sometimes. They're expected to measure if the be
157.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
Funny that Jocelyn Bell Burnell herself argued that she shouldn't have received the Nobel prize (I think she should have): > It has been suggested that I should have had a part in the Nobel Prize awarded to Tony Hewish for the disco
158.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
They were pointing out a typo ("syncophantic").
159.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
First, the thrust of your argument is that you already knew that it would be impossible for a model like Gemini 3 Pro to solve a maze without code, so there's nothing interesting to learn from trying it. But the rest of us did not know
160.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
It depends whether you're asking it to solve a maze because you just need something that can solve mazes, or if you're trying to learn something about the model's abilities in different domains. If it can't solve a maze
161.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
My guess is the part of its neural network that parses the image into a higher level internal representation really is seeing the dog as having four legs, and intelligence and reasoning in the rest of the network isn't going to undo th
162.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
According to the post, "the change in the file size will result in minimal changes to load times - seconds at most." It didn't help their game load noticeably faster. They just hadn't checked if the optimization actually
163.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
There is also no way to weight a coin that makes it more likely to get 100/200 than a fair coin.
164.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
You misunderstood me. I wasn't claiming viruses are or aren't alive. I was pointing out you chose a citation that doesn't contain support for your claim. There are plenty of sources that would back you up, but that link doesn
165.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
Not sure why you linked that particular article, as it does not mention anywhere whether viruses are alive (though it implies they're alive with the sentence "Vaccines may consist of either live or killed viruses"). They are
166.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
You're being rigid about your preferred definition of life, but for what purpose? What is gained by categorizing this as strictly non-living? Wikipedia on the definition of life: > Since there is no consensus for a definition of lif
167.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
It's possible that particular user, despite not wanting the shorts, will keep paying for YouTube for longer because they enjoy shorts. It's also possible that they genuinely don't like them and are less likely to keep paying
168.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
Yes, as you say, maybe there isn't a big demand to disable shorts completely.
169.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
I think you're basically right, but the comment I replied to was saying they'll somehow get more of that specific user's money. While the shorts may improve retention in aggregate, this particular paying customer doesn't
170.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
They don't make more money from showing you shorts once you've paid to remove the ads. The default reason some feature doesn't exist is simply because no one bothered to make it. Maybe they don't think there's a big
171.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
As I understand it, you don't want to posit the existence of a new particle, or new property of particles (e.g. particles have mass, charge, and some consciousness property), or a new field or anything outside of the standard model of
172.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
Likely it'll leak or be rediscovered eventually. But not every trade secret gets leaked. Most responsibly disclosed software vulnerabilities aren't exploited (to our knowledge) before a fix is released. If the discovery isn't
173.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
> The problem comes from stipulating that something with a negligible probability has a high probability. We are not doing so, and I don't know how I could have been more clear that we are not saying this hypothetical will happen. W
174.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
> The premise of censorship is that you're trying to prevent someone from telling other people something... So you're not against individuals self-censoring for public safety, but you're against companies censoring their A
175.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
Your plan is to release the secret recipe that anyone can use to make a WMD in a few days to absolutely everyone and hope someone comes up with a countermeasure before some nutcase or terrorist decides to try out the new WMD? The odds of us
176.
by nearbuy 11mo ago
> The main ones are that most people don't want to be mass murderers and actually doing it would be the fast ticket to Epic Retaliation. The main thing preventing random nutcases from making nuclear weapons is they don't have a
177.
by nearbuy 1y ago
You're explaining the part I said I understood instead of the part I asked about. I don't see any reason computation would ever have to lead to true subjective consciousness instead of an externally identical philosophical zombie.
178.
by nearbuy 1y ago
Okay. I think at the core you're positing that consciousness does arise somehow from regular physical particles and the forces that attract and repel them, but that consciousness doesn't arise merely from some kind of computation
179.
by nearbuy 1y ago
I still don't know what you're getting at. I think you're either positing that there is some yet undiscovered force or particle in physics that gives rise to consciousness (e.g. some kind of soul particle), or you think the p
180.
by nearbuy 1y ago
I'm not saying that souls or non-physical things exist, nor that everything physical is feasible for us to build. I was replying to the opinion that AI is never going to be conscious because consciousness is a physical process. I just

More ›