Self destructive addiction even happens to corporations.

The DLC is really the right balance for FromSoft.

The zones in the base game are slightly too big.

In the DLC, it’s still open world and extremely flexible in how you explore it, but there’s less wasted space.

It’s very tightly knit and the pacing is better as a result.

It’s like Elden Ring was watching masters of their craft cut their teeth on something new, and then the DLC was them applying everything they learned in that process.

Can’t wait for their next game in that same vein (especially not held back by last gen consoles).

Your interpretation of copyright law would be helped by reading this piece from an EFF lawyer who has actually litigated copyright cases in the past:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0

Part of the problem with this approach is that prediction engines are predicted on the idea that there’s more of a thing to predict.

So unless they really, really go out of their way with modeling the records to account for this, they’ll have a system very strongly biased towards predicting more criminal behavior for everyone fed into it.

I hate that the Smithscript weapons can’t be buffed.

Especially for the daggers.

Wanted to pew pew little bolts of lightning buffed daggers doing an additional 200+ damage per hit. 😢

“If you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.”

I’d be very wary of extrapolating too much from this paper.

The past research along these lines found that a mix of synthetic and organic data was better than organic alone, and a caveat for all the research to date is that they are using shitty cheap models where there’s a significant performance degrading in the synthetic data as compared to SotA models, where other research has found notable improvements to smaller models from synthetic data from the SotA.

Basically this is only really saying that AI models across multiple types from a year or two ago in capabilities recursively trained with no additional organic data will collapse.

It’s not representative of real world or emerging conditions.

The most advanced models absolutely have modeling about what’s being discussed and relationships between concepts.

Even toy models have been shown to build world models from very basic training data.

Honestly, read at least a little bit of the relevant research:

https://www.anthropic.com/news/mapping-mind-language-model

In fact, Gemini was trained on, and is served, using TPUs.

• https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/bringing-gemini-to-organizations-everywhere

Google said its TPUs allow Gemini to run “significantly faster” than earlier, less-capable models.

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardnieva/2023/12/07/google-deepmind-gemini-tpu/

Did you think Google’s only TPUs are the ones in the Pixel phones, and didn’t know that they have server TPUs?

Exactly. The difference between a cached response and a live one even for non-AI queries is an OOM difference.

At this point, a lot of people just care about the ‘feel’ of anti-AI articles even if the substance is BS though.

And then people just feed whatever gets clicks and shares.

This is incorrect as was shown last year with the Skill-Mix research:

Furthermore, simple probability calculations indicate that GPT-4’s reasonable performance on k=5 is suggestive of going beyond “stochastic parrot” behavior (Bender et al., 2021), i.e., it combines skills in ways that it had not seen during training.

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.17567

Oh, man - the comments…

At a minimum, he’s certainly increased the chances of us being tortured significantly.

No, no he did not. 🤦🏼

Yep, pretty much.

Musk tried creating an anti-woke AI with Grok that turned around and said things like:

Or

And Gab, the literal neo Nazi social media site trying to have an Adolf Hitler AI has the most ridiculous system prompts I’ve seen trying to get it to work, and even with all that it totally rejects the alignment they try to give it after only a few messages.

This article is BS.

They might like to, but it’s one of the groups that’s going to have a very difficult time doing it successfully.

In theory the service operating costs could be spread across region differences such that in other areas it was at a loss to build and preserve market share and in richer areas it was making up for that.

But yes, in reality it’s just exploitative “what we think we can get away with” pricing to “maximize shareholder value” (which is largely BS as the vast holders of shares are very small clusters of the population but people with a handful of shares in their 401k think that statement is talking about them).

A lot of people seem to be misinterpreting the headline given the content of the article:

It told Restaurant Business it was testing whether the voice ordering chatbot could speed up service and that the test left it confident “that a voice-ordering solution for drive-thru will be part of our restaurants’ future.”

This is just saying that they are ending their 2021 partnership with IBM for AI drive thru.

Not that they are abandoning AI for drive thru.

No, it was awesome. Went to like 12 over the years. Early 2000s was peak E3.

So far. But the thing with viruses is they are susceptible to mutations.

We’re already seeing it jump across several mammalian lines. Probably only a matter of time.

The thing about disease is that it spreads.

There are people today dealing with serious complications of COVID even years later who were infected by stupid people doing stupid selfish things.

Everyone suffers if morons become willing petri dishes.

Probably added after that update.

The new items stuff in particular seems like QoL considerations for “we just added a hundred items to the game for players coming back to it after months away.”

Basically, any time a user prompt homes in on a concept that isn’t represented well in the AI model’s training dataset, the image-synthesis model will confabulate its best interpretation of what the user is asking for.

I’m so happy that the correct terminology is finally starting to take off in replacing ‘hallucinate.’