right, but my point was that you should need to do detective work to figure out the date of a post, especially when the title refers to a transition in time from one era to another
A lot of people made a lot of noise about it and it hasn’t been long enough to tell for sure, but there is no real competition to Unity in many situations without a lot more work falling on your dev team.
One thing to keep in mind is that the author’s interest lies in the nature of nuclear secrecy, and not necessarily the secrets themselves. It’s a subtle distinction but I think explains why the author finds the fact that this type of diagram was officially released by a national lab interesting, even if the information has previously made its way to the public domain in other unofficial ways.
Does ChatGPT just copy content and resell it? If it were that simple then there wouldn't be much debate and existing copyright law would be sufficient to settle the question. Also, whether or not Google is mutualistically benefiting everyone is not sufficient to answer the question of whether Google or OpenAI are violating copyright protections.
But yes the crux of it is financial and not algorithmic. Google ALSO uses AI. If google took sentences from 2 different web pages and stitched them together to form a paragraph, is that AI or search? [see google BERT]. What if they stitched together 3000 word-parts? What if they took sentences from 15 web pages, ranked them, and that's your view? See, it's all the same thing. openAI stitches together word-parts, by comparison.
Now when I say it's financial, when said information is presented, google gladly gives a hit to the site +/- add revenue if present. openAI does not do this. If openAI figured out how to do this then we'd be cooking with some gas.
> Also, whether or not Google is mutualistically benefiting everyone ...
Google arbitrarily chooses which sites to show on the search page, which may have nothing to do with relevance of the actual topic being searched. Only certain sites which google thinks should be at the top are at the top.
If google decides to blacklist you for whatever reason... well tough.
The rules of physics have a very clear purpose: to predict how and when some natural phenomenon occurs. So the question can be re-phrased as: why did we come up with the notion of a neutrino, what phenomenon did it explain?
We certainly didn't just happen to see one colliding with with something, we knew they have to exist far before the first one was ever detected.
Way to totally miss the point. I wasn't talking about the rules we create; I was talking about the actual rules in the physical world. These exist independent of us. They function, they don't predict.
The notion that those actual rules have some sort of purpose reeks of a medieval mindset, where the world is the creation of God and has His Purpose, which it is the function of natural philosophers to figure out.
> I was talking about the actual rules in the physical world. These exist independent of us. They function, they don't predict.
Nobody knows what those are though; mere humans have to get by with prediction.
In fact there's no airtight reason to think that you can even in principle make the leap from valid predictions to knowing what the actual physical rules really are. This is the whole "problem of induction" thing:
No amount of observing the universe can ever conclusively prove that our ideas about how it really functions are true, because we're stuck inside it and can't directly inspect the clockwork, if there is any.
I find this sort of nihilism completely tedious. Yes, we can know there are neutrinos there. This physical reality is not identical with our theories about them.
> And *if you are in control of producing data*, just produce strict RFC 4180-compliant CSV data
The point of the comment was that you likely aren’t in control of producing the data, so the article’s recommendation of using an entirely different format is likely also invalid. I’m not sure what you are arguing against as you seem to actually agree with them.
So you can tell what the URL might point to by looking at it. That’s one of the important things mentioned in the article linked on this HN post: URLs are used by both computers and people.
Different kinds of AI are likely fun for different players. Games have difficulty levels partly because not everyone wants the same level of difficulty relative to their own skill level. Some may want something easily beatable for them, some may want something difficult for them to beat.
reply