If you gave your AI permission to run console commands without check or verification, then you did in fact give it permission to delete everything.

That is enormously ironic, since I literally never claimed you said anything except for what you did: Namely, that synthetic data is enough to train models.

According to you, they should be able to just generate synthetic training data purely with the previous model, and then use that to train the next generation.

LIterally, the very next sentence starts with the words “Then why”, which clearly and explicitly means I’m no longer indirectly quoting you Everything else in my comment is quite explicitly my own thoughts on the matter, and why I disagree with that statment, so in actual fact, you’re the one making up shit I never said.

If the model collapse theory weren’t true, then why do LLMs need to scrape so much data from the internet for training ?

According to you, they should be able to just generate synthetic training data purely with the previous model, and then use that to train the next generation.

So why is there even a need for human input at all then ? Why are all LLM companies fighting tooth and nail against their data scraping being restricted, if real human data is in fact so unnecessary for model training, and they could just generate their own synthetic training data instead ?

You can stop models from deteriorating without new data, and you can even train them with synthetic data, but that still requires the synthetic data to either be modelled, or filtered by humans to ensure its quality. If you just take a million random chatGPT outputs, with no human filtering whatsoever, and use those to retrain the chatGPT model, and then repeat that over and over again, eventually the model will turn to shit. Each iteration some of the random tweaks chatGPT makes to their output are going to produce some low quality outputs, which are now presented to the new training model as a target to achieve, so the new model learns that the quality of this type of bad output is actually higher, which makes it more likely for it to reappear in the next set of synthetic data.

And if you turn of the random tweaks, the model may not deteriorate, but it also won’t improve, because effectively no new data is being generated.

What the hell even is the point mandating a back up alarm for self driving cars ? Backup alarms literally only exist because visibility to the rear is worse, and to warn pedestrians that a vehicle nearby is moving with very poor to no visibility, but that only applies to human operated vehicles. Autonomous vehicles use 360° sensors, they can “see” just as well in reverse as in forward. Be that good or bad, it’s equal in every direction, so mandating an alarm just for reverse seems enormously pointless. Especially since the cars tend to be slower in reverse, so if anything it’s less necessary then, vs. when they’re moving forward.

The line, imo, is: are you creating it yourself, and just using AI to help you make it faster/more convenient, or is AI the primary thing that is creating your content in the first place.

Using AI for convenience is absolutely valid imo, I routinely use chatGPT to do things like debugging code I wrote, or rewriting data sets in different formats, instead of doing to by hand, or using it for more complex search and replace jobs, if I can’t be fucked to figure out a regex to cover it.

For these kind of jobs, I think AI is a great tool.

More simply said, I personally generally use AI for small subtasks that I am entirely capable of doing myself, but are annoying/boring/repetitive/time consuming to do by hand.

Technically, you’re just describing any DOS attack. The specific characteristic of a DDOS attack is the distribution, i.e. using a botnet to send traffic from thousands of different ip addresses simoultaneously, which makes DDOS attacks far harder to block than a simple DOS attack, originating from a single IP.

If “everyone will be using AI”, AI will turn to shit.

They can’t create originality, they’re only recycling and recontextualising existing information. But if you recycle and recontextualise the same information over and over again, it keeps degrading more and more.

It’s ironic that the very people who advocate for AI everywhere, fail to realise just how dependent the quality of AI content is on having real, human generated content to input to train the model.

Not to necessarily defend the idea in the article, but that comment screams that you just read the headline and not the article.

If you had read the article, you would know that the author doesn’t want to get rid of routable addresses, they want to replace the current system of IP address assignments with an automated cryptographic address system, allowing network size to rapidly increase, and self organise without reliance on a central address authority. So your analogy of having no address at all is massive misrepresentation of the authors idea.

Wildly misrepresentating ideas is never good. Even if you dislike it, by wildly misrepresentating the idea, it just discredits your own stance, because it’s (seemingly) based on falsehoods.

Pretending like the author just wants to just abolish all types of routing addresses is dishonest.

Führer might only mean leader in Germany, but it’s rarely used outside of refering to Hitler nowadays.

Leader, in modern German, would be translated as “Anführer”, not “Führer” specifically because of the connotations. Also, using the term fuhrer in English, instead of translating as leader, clearly means it’s being used as a title, rather than a factual descriptor of what he was.

You can use Führer in context, but as it’s a title that was specifically created by and for Hitler, and never used before or since, it’s generally not used as a title for him, because people don’t want to give him the post mortem respect of addressing him by this title.

And for context, the entire German language Wikipedia entry of Hitler, calls Hitler Führer a total of 17 times. 8 of those are in direct quotes, 3 in indirect quotes, 2 of them are describing his official title “Führer und Reichsanzler” (outside of quotes only, to prevent double counting), 2 use the literal meaning of “leader” in the context of the party, NOT his title as dictator, 2 of them are talking about how he saw himself, and one is drawing a linguistic analogous link between “Führer” and “Geführten” (Leader and Followers).

Outside of quotes, there is not a single use of the term “Der Führer” as an actual honorific title (“The Führer”) for Hitler in the entire German language Wikipedia page (which is 30-40k words long).

Weighing the benefits of an action vs its effort is a bizzare way to look at things for you ? Interesting stance to have, I’m curious how you decide if something is worth it or not.

And the goal of my comment was obviously not to make or save money, so that’s a shit comparison. If you take an action with the explicit and singular goal of saving money, I do think it’s absolutely worth it to consider if you even save enough money to be worth the bother. Yes switching on and off an outlet is only a tiny effort, but you’re literally doing it JUST to save money, and the amount of money you save is EVEN MORE tiny and miniscule.

The plug contacts are basically never the limiting factor current wise. They are massive solid metal prongs, they can easily handle 20-30 Amps without getting too hot. The cable will always be limiting factor for current.

a 110/220 auto sensing plug

There’s no real need for a plug to be able to sense what voltage it’s plugged into. That would be handled device side, not plug side. And for devices for which handling both 110 and 220 makes sense, well those pretty much universally already have a switch mode power supply that does so automatically, or at least a dip switch with which a user can manually select their grid voltage (check your phone or laptop charger, I can virtually guarantee it already supports both).

And the issue with devices that don’t already do this, is generally that they are basic resistive or inductive loads (anything along the lines of heaters or motors), with little to nothing in the way of digital control electronics, which need to be designed for a specific input voltage in order to achieve a specific power output. Making these devices both 110V and 220V compatible would require either giving every single one of them a voltage transformer, or to include a 110V motor/heating coil, and a 220V one, that can be switched between. Both of which would massively increase the price of these devices.

I’m not being hostile, I just fail to understand how your point with multi phase standards has anything whatsoever to do with safety. Multiphase standards, and standard intercompatability are convenience issues, not safety issues, and therfore irrelevant to the discussion.

And other standards notably, explicitly do NOT include all those safety standards. For example, the ground pin on UK plugs is longer than the L and N, which A) can be used to place child safety shutters in every single outlet, that are lifted out of the way when the ground pin is inserted and B) in the same vein ensure that GND is always the first prong to make contact. The wiring of UK plugs also requires a some slack in the L and GND wires, so that if the cable is yankes so hard the wires tear out of the plug, L is always the first to go.

The internal fuse also allows you to safely use super thin gauge wiring on low power appliances, and allows you to create cheap, low power extension cords, that are still safe because they have a fuse in the plug (yes, in theory any country could do that, but resetable breakers are expensive, and replaceble fuses are inconvenient for the user, unless the contry already has a decades old standard surrounding them, and they’re already available for sale basically everywhere).

If other plugs provide safe alternatives for the issues I’ve reiterated, shouldn’t we be looking at those plugs as safer alternatives?

No. Not unless the current plug is outright dangerous. Rewriting an entire countries electric code, and introducing an entirely new type of plug, especially one which would be neither forward nor backward compatable with the old one, costs billions, and is a major nuisance for consumers in the transition phase. It’s simply not worth it, unless it’s necessary for fundamental safety.

Rule of thumb: If a small electronic appliance (e.g. phone charger, power brick etc…) isn’t warm to the touch, it’s using less than 1 Watt of power, which at UK electric prices, is less than half a penny per 24 hours. If you value your own time at UK minimum wage, and it takes you 3 seconds to switch off, and 3 seconds to switch back on, you won’t break even unless you keep it switched off for at least 4 days. So maybe worth it if you’re going on holiday. As an everyday thing, unplugging/switching off idle electronics to save power is a complete waste of time.

There’s also no real reason to unplug something, even if the plug isn’t switched. Modern electrical appliances have idle power draws of less than a watt.

Rule of thumb: If a small electronic appliance (e.g. phone charger, power brick etc…) isn’t warm to the touch, it’s using less than 1 Watt of power, which at UK electric prices, is less than half a penny per 24 hours.

If you value your own time at UK minimum wage, and it takes you 5 seconds to unplug, and 5 seconds to replug, you won’t break even unless you keep it unplugged for at least 7 days. So maybe worth it if you’re going on holiday. As an everyday thing, unplugging idle electronics to save power is a complete waste of time.

As for electrical safety, generally speaking if something is unsafe whilst plugged in but switched off, it’s typically not legal to sell in countries with properly enforced standards anyway. And with whole house RCD protection being relatively universal in western europe, even if something were to go wrong, chances are the RCD, or AFCI if the breaker panel is real fancy, will stop the bad thing happening real quick.

Oh and quick PSA: Regardless of it’s whole house protection, or individual socket protection, you should test the function of your RCDs every now and again. Officially at least once a month. Every RCD breaker has a little button somewhere labeled “test”, that connects L to GND across a resistor, to check if the breaker actually does it’s job. If you’ve never done this (and haven’t recently had the RCD trip for an actual fault) GO DO IT NOW. THOSE THINGS ARE LITERALLY LIFE SAVERS AND IT’S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THEY’RE ACTUALLY WORKING.

And who gets to decide who gets killed ? Who is infallible, incorruptible and flawless enough to decide who gets executed ?

And if you cannot name them, then tell me: How many innocent people are you willing to murder, per 100 executions. If you cannot name a flawless judge, then innocents will be executed. That is a fact. So tell me: How many innocents are you willing to murder, for heinous criminals to be executed instead of getting life without parole ?

This dude was literally currently at trial for murder. That argument might apply AFTER someone has been wrongly acquitted.

This logic is literally NEVER applicable inside a court room, before the verdict has been read.

So you’re saying the victim of a crime should get to act as judge jury and executioner ?

Like I’m sorry you had to go through that, but how would you feel it your child was falsely accused of murder, and then revenge killed by a family member of a victim at trial.

There’s a reason we don’t allow vigilante justice.

Ah yes. Classic “Everyone deserves a fair trial, until I think they’ve done a bad enough crime, in which case I’ll activately cheer for that right being taken away”.

Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.

You people cheering this on, and encouraging have on your hands the blood of every single innocent person who was ever killed or assaulted by a vigilante.

Women may not not be a mathematical minority, but they absolutely are a cultural/societal minoritiy.

Cultural minorities have nothing to do with the absolute number of members the group has, but how much political and social power and influence the group holds.

That’s why black africans during apartheid Africa would still be considered minorities, even though they made up the mathematical majority of inhabitants.