X shows a "LOCK" icon when they are coming in VPN. To out them.
Also, it shows which country's app store you installed your app. For this reason, when they use their mobile app, it will be outted that way.
The onus is on FireFox to deliver "the killer feature". No killer feature, nobody will bother with it. Mozilla needs to shift into entrepreneurial innovation.
I think this is because older AI doesn't get done what LLM AI does. Older AI = normal trained models, neural networks (without transformers), support vector machines, etc. For that reason, they are letting them go. They don't see revenue coming from that. They don't see new product lines (like AI Generative image/video). AI may have this every 5 years. A break through moves the technology into an entirely new area. Then older teams have to re-train, or have a harder time.
I would expect nearly every active AI engineer who trained models in the pre-LLM era to be up to speed on the transformer-based papers and techniques. Most people don't study AI and then decide "I don't like learning" when the biggest AI breakthroughs and ridiculous pay packages all start happening.
I really doubt that. Most of the profit-generating AI in most industries... decision support, spotting connections, recommendations, filtering, etc... runs on old school techniques. They're cheaper to train, cheaper to run, and more explainable.
Last survey I saw said regression was still the most-used technique with SVM's more used than LLM's. I figured combining those types of tools with LLM tech, esp for specifying or training them, is a better investment than replacing them. There's people doing that.
Now, I could see Facebook itself thinking LLM's are the most important if they're writing all the code, tests, diagnostics, doing moderation, customer service, etc. Essentially, running the operational side of what generates revenue. They're also willing to spend a lot of money to make that good enough for their use case.
That said, their financial bets make me wonder if they're driven by imagination more than hard analyses.
This seems like the most likely explanation. Legacy AI out in favour of LLM focused AI. Also perhaps some cleaning out of the old guard and middle management while they're at it.
There always has been a stunning amount of inertia from the old big data/ML/"AI" guard towards actually deploying anything more sophisticated than linear regression.
There's a lot of areas where you need to be able to explain the decisions that your AI models make and that's extremely hard to do unless you're using linear regression. E.g. you're a bank and your AI model for some reason appears to be accepting applications from white people and rejecting applications from african americans or latinos. How are you going to show in court that your model isn't discriminating based on race or some proxy for race?
Research is finding MicroTubules in the brain likely are the LINK (quantum entanglement) to where Consciousness "lives" (is located). Note that the Microtubules link STOPs while under Anesthesia.
Yeah he types weird and linked some generic YouTube search result that pops Joe Rogan up for some people, but there's some pretty interesting research along these lines that's becoming harder to dismiss as just Roger Penrose stepping way outta his field (I don't see people personally attacking Hameroff or Tuszynski for their roles in this research which always struck me as telling). I think it's more trying to zero in on how consciousness works from the perspective of trying to figure out how xenon administration in anesthesiology works to induce its effects.
Joe Rogan has interviewed plenty of people, different people that have very little in common, just because some of them have controversial views that make you nervous that doesn't mean all the information is useless.
We are constantly bombarded by links to information. It is reasonable to make snap judgments about the quality of the information based on who is providing it. If I’m looking for accurate, factual information on a topic that is clearly prone to magical thinking, a provider whose reputation is to listen to anyone, including people who very much engage in magical thinking, is actually a very bad source. Because they will not filter on anything beyond “is this neat to listen to.”
You are correct. However, Joe Rogan should not be the first stop for assessing the scientific plausibility of a new idea. If that is where someone is sending you, that can- and should- be a red flag.
On the other hand, there's no shortage of information out there, so it's not particularly weird to filter out the sources you already have found to be unreliable rather than spend the time to try to listen to everything else they have to say
Nothing weird or new about it: Suppose the foremost source for Dr. Example's claims happens to be the one time they interviewed on Coast To Coast AM [0]. That tells you something about the media-landscape they seek—or have been stuck inside.
I don't think it's the controversy of his guests so much as many of their unqualified ramblings that get treated as expertise. It's really obnoxious that it all gets put into political controversy when it's just often facially stupid BS.
This is like Gell-Man Amnesia, but for the YouTube age. If I can recognize a source is unreliable for my area of expertise, it's more strange to expect that I would trust it in other areas just because I don't have the expertise in that area to directly evaluate all of the claims
Why does consciousness have to live somewhere? I currently prefer to think of it as an emergent phenomenon that arises (somehow, we have no clue) from the complex and distributed computations in the brain. Many different systems contribute, and saying that a single level of abstraction is where it lives seems meaningless. Kind of like saying that your video game “lives” in a transistor. It’s not wrong, but it’s not useful.
We don't seem to be able to find it inside the physical brain, and not for a lack of trying. Just throwing emergent behaviour out there changes nothing, just like it doesn't for AI.
What would "finding it" mean, whether inside the brain or out? It's quite easy to perturb consciousness by messing with the pieces of the brain, via pharmacology, injury, electrical stimulation, etc. I'm not sure why we need to assign responsibility to a single specific component like microtubules. That seems like saying the axle is responsible for a car moving. Sure, not wrong, but not right or explanatory either.
There are observed differences in brain function between conscious and unconscious patients. What's wrong with that as an initial characterization of "consciousness in the brain"? The investigation of these "neural correlates of consciousness" is quite a rich research field in its own right
Step 6: The facebook / Instragram / X equivalents then lose their ad revenue. They then may capitulate to keep the ad revenue.
See BlueSky just rolled out Terms ToS that the automated UN Safety (censorship) laws they will accept. This is an automated pipeline for the "censorship demand data notice" can be applied in an automated why. It is plumbing for automating censorship. See "DSA" part of those laws and how BlueSky's ToS is responding.
> See BlueSky just rolled out Terms ToS that the automated UN Safety (censorship) laws they will accept. This is an automated pipeline for the "censorship demand data notice" can be applied in an automated why.
I feel like you are missing some words or have some typos because this isn't comprehensible English.
I've spent years living abroad and have had many long discussions and friendships with non-native english speakers.
This could be a non-native speaker, but the complexity of the attempted sentence structure leads me to think it is a native or fluent speaker who made some mistakes (I make those kinds of mistakes all the time.)
