I agree, but also find it funny that by that standard the DRM in the original Google video streaming product was not hacked before the service was shutdown, after about 2 years :)
> Elimination communication (EC) is a practice in which a caregiver uses timing, signals, cues, and intuition to address an infant's need to eliminate waste. Caregivers try to recognize and respond to babies' bodily needs and enable them to urinate and defecate in an appropriate place (e.g. a toilet).
> Keeping babies clean and dry without diapers is standard practice in many cultures throughout the world. While this practice is only recently becoming known in industrialized societies, it remains the dominant method of baby hygiene in non-industrialized ones.
> The terms elimination communication and natural infant hygiene were coined by Ingrid Bauer and are used interchangeably in her book, Diaper Free! The Gentle Wisdom of Natural Infant Hygiene (2001).
I actually know quite a few (a bit hipster) German parents who tried it with good success rate (at least they claim that). It doesn't have to be perfect, but you train regularly with nursing / waking up that the baby urinates with every nursing/waking up. This is possible from day one and they catch on quickly to it.
Yes. People willingly accept made up text (stories) if it fits their world view, and for words we always knew that they could be untrue. Why should it be different for images/audio/video?
Art is only interesting if it elicits an emotional response in the viewer. Otherwise it is illustration.
And the wonder of it is that we can all have different responses to the same thing. (The Mona Lisa is a waste of canvas and oil - a hill I will die on).
I cynically believe that many people will force themselves into having an emotional response if the art piece matches with what they understand as having currency with the type of people they seek to emulate and the rarified scene they want to be a part of.
I think I read here on hackernews that the Mona Lisa doesn't look at all like it did when it was freshly made. If I look at the restored copy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado)#, I at least find the silk very nice.
Thanks for replying that. I think after reading this, I'd go with what was said at the end: “There is no such thing as an unintended consequence” - Amazon claiming that what they're doing is to the benefit of consumers is bullshit. Obviously Amazon knows about all of what's going on (i.e. they cause prize inflation elsewhere) and they willfully tolerate these consequences of their policy.
> Indeed hallucinated cases are "better law." Drawing on Ronald Dworkin's theory of law as integrity, which posits that ideal legal decisions must "fit" existing precedents while advancing principled justice, this article argues that these hallucinations represent emergent normative ideals. AI models, trained on vast corpora of real case law, synthesize patterns to produce rulings that optimally align with underlying legal principles, filling gaps in the doctrinal landscape. Rather than errors, they embody the "cases that should exist," reflecting a Hercules-like judge's holistic interpretation.
Seems naive. You can get an LLM to agree with almost anything if you say the right things to it, and it will hallucinate citations to back you up without skipping a beat. You can probably get it to hallucinate case law to legalize murder on Mondays.
You’re talking about manipulated/malicious/intentfully steered hallucination but the parent is referring to trained emergent hallucination (even if sycophantic). These are two different things and both can occur, but the latter is what’s being tongue-in-cheek referred to by the professor.
I didn’t say they were. They do have a bias. I have the same one.
My comment was aimed at the implication that the data might be untrustworthy because they were the ones reporting it.
So I pointed out it wasn’t their data.
As for “spin“ Elon has been telling us for a long time that FSD is safer than humans and will save lives. We appear to have objective data that counters that narrative.
Who said the data was untrustworthy, the source of the article is presenting the data in a highly negative light, which it does in 99% of its articles, so it's a worthless website for reporting data of this sort.
It's basically a few light bumps going at snails pace and probably caused by other cars. The articles headline reads as if it mowed down a group of school children.
reply