Oh cool, someone talking about the really weird bug that I've never seen reported elsewhere. Seems like an issue where certain versions of Unity (to name one engine) doesn't like it when your actual game controller is the second joystick it detects. Not really Keychron's fault or Linux's fault, just a weird engine quirk.
Anyway, if someone finds this by searching, at least on Arch it's as simple as adding a custom hwdb entry at /etc/udev/hwdb.d/61-input-id-local.hwdb:
Why did Anthropic settle with authors for 1.5 billion then? Surely their lawyers must have decided there's a pretty good chance of judges ultimately deciding that it is copyright infringement?
What does that matter? They were sued and the group suing them accepted at $1.5B settlement instead of something theoretically much larger and precedent-setting.
Because the judge ruled that using the books for training was "fair use". The issue was Anthropic downloading and storing pirated content and there is quite a bit of precedent regarding that already...
> It's implicitly assumed when you read something that a person write it.
I basically agree, but it's more specific than that, I think. The basic promise is that the writer believes the thing you are writing. This is a feature of human speech that is so central that Grice made it part of one of the maxims of his pragmatic theory of conversation: "do not say what you believe to be false" or "that for which you lack adequate evidence."
In writing, using generative AI destroys the pragmatic basis for this conversational maxim, because it means that a consequential number of "people" you and I talk to online are not really people at all. They're entirely artificial, and the text generated was never even read by a human, certainly not a statement of a human's actual beliefs about anything. (This isn't even a human-preferring standard, the problem with LLM text is that even the LLM doesn't believe it.) Even in cases where a human does interact with the text in some capacity before it is published, it's likely that a plurality to a majority of the ideas reflected in the text come from a language model that does not actually believe them.
Writing is something that aids in the development of human ideas. It's not just that in the ideal case, a human being will have certain ideas and be able to communicate them to other people. Rather, we often have inchoate, unclear, or even contradictory ideas and opinions, and the process of writing itself leads us to figure out what it is, exactly, that we believe. So even in the "ideal" case of someone like OP who engages with LLMs more critically, and claims responsibility for every bit of text they publish, the process is still detrimental to the production and communication of true beliefs because their ideas were formed in dialogue with an agent that did not actually believe them. It's a process that is dangerous to bypass because you skip most of the thinking involved in writing without even realizing it.
Because the point of the test is to see what the agentic swarm approach is capable of. If your test assumes that a version of the thing you are trying to build is available in the training data, or can't determine if it matters whether the thing you're building is in the training data, then it's not a very useful test. Most of the time when you consider agentic approaches, you're not trying to rebuild something the agents involved are trained on.
Right, I think the problem with a lot of the economics-based analyses in this thread is that they rely on the assumption that Valve ought to, or wants to, sell the device at its market value.
High volume on low margin is an extremely good way to make money. It's very naive to think the easy way to get rich is to price gouge. It's actually often the worst.
Surely the solution to this social problem, however, can't be "everyone should simply convert to my religion / achieve a higher state of mind where they're not bothered by any form of inconvenience, irritation, or interruption." If it comes to that, most people will continue to wear their AirPods. It's a non-answer.
I think you'll find that I never made any such claim. I only ever spoke of my own experience with the topic at hand. I've done so in good faith that others may find it a useful comparison to the original technique suggested.
Well, I suppose that's true strictly speaking. What I'm reacting to is your claim that this is a simple "choice" that everyone else is making:
> Embracing or shunning the society you live in is a choice.
When the reality is that it's more complicated. You're able to make this "choice" because you've spent years cultivating a quasi-religious attitude of equanimity toward things that are, from the perspective of most, annoying, troubling, or frightening. So what you're asking of most people is more than a choice (taking their AirPods out), it's more a matter of converting to a different way of life entirely.
> What I'm reacting to is your claim that this is a simple "choice" that everyone else is making:
Just because something is simple, does not mean it is easy.
This has been part of ancient philosophies: “Freedom is the only worthy goal in life. It is won by disregarding things that lie beyond our control.” — Epictetus
But also more recent writings:
* “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” ― Viktor E. Frankl (someone who survived the Holocaust)
* “The one thing you can’t take away from me is the way I choose to respond to what you do to me. The last of one’s freedoms is to choose one’s attitude in any given circumstance.” ― Viktor E. Frankl
* “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
― Viktor E. Frankl, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_Search_for_Meaning
> So what you're asking of most people is more than a choice (taking their AirPods out), it's more a matter of converting to a different way of life entirely.
Before making the effort to "convert" you first need to choose whether you want to continue to be vexed and frustrated by external events, or if you want to try to reduce your mental anguish by things you cannot control.
Do you want to continue to get pissed off by other drivers, or not? Do you want to get annoyed by other people on the train/bus, or not? Do you want more of an internal calm/peace, or not?
I actually made the decision long before I was ever capable of carrying out the act itself.
I was in a depressive suicidal hole, and had been for well over a decade. The first time I tried to kill my self, I was seven years old.
It began with the realization, while I was trying to drink myself to the courage to finally pull the trigger, that the common refrain "it's all my fault" meant just a bit more than I'd given it credit for.
I realized, huddle on the floor behind my recliner because it was the smallest place I could find and fit in to, that if the desperate quality of my life were truly entirely my own fault, then it could be possible that I could stop being the source of my own malcontent. That was enough to save me from that particular suicidal flare. That I could stop harming myself.
It's been many years from then, and it was many years from there to when I realized that I could even be a source of happiness for myself instead of merely not harming myself.
But it was a choice that I was making, to view myself as inept, beyond salvation, capable of and likely to ruin everything, hater of my fellow mankind, etc. I have found in the years since the last time I tried to kill my self that almost every single unhappiness in my life was a matter of perspective rather than a genuine immutable fact.
Consider the article. People are noisy. Do I have to be upset about that? I certainly used to be bothered by all sorts of rude and noisy people. On the train, at the library, in the grocery, etc. That anger contributed to my general dismay of humanity such that I used to feel that it was all hopeless, and that if everything were hopeless, I shouldn't persist in trying.
That posture was a choice. Choosing to make the effort to no longer adopt that posture was a choice. That I have continued to attempt to make the choice to be compassionate and equanimous towards others is a choice that I have struggled with, and have ultimately both struggled with and succeeded in pursuing.
It's a choice that I have ultimately benefitted from. I cannot possibly see going back to the world in which I elevate my own concerns so highly above others that I simply and outright refuse to observe their own suffering. The world's a bummer, for sure, but for me personally, I am happier observing the problems and contributing to their diminution than I ever was ignoring or pretending the problems didn't exist.
I'm sorry that you think I'm asking anything of anyone, and that you think I've got anything at all adjacent to a religious attitude. Neither could be further from the truth. I am merely sharing my own experience as a contrasting example to the phenomenon described. I know that many people associate certain words with religious activity, but I can assure you that I definitely do not practious any such thing, and would never advise anyone else to do any such thing.
I used to be a person who shut everyone and everything out. I used to do so because I believed that anyone and everything were the source of my suicidal ideation. When I chose to change my beliefs, to believe that perhaps I was the source of my own discontent, was the first moment that I had a glimpse of a future in which I was no longer suicidal.
I just figured this was an opportunity to be like "hey, listening to and talking to people is actually possibly a good thing because it was for me even though I used to think otherwise"
Well, sure, but the last time a suicidal person hears "it gets better" is probably the most impactful of any such event.
I know I'm no leader, that's why I've not condescended to offer any kind of a map. I took a messy, far longer than necessary route to achieve anything that could at all be described as succesful.
I just thought, hey, why not share a picture of the progress?
> about how Claude or even Codex have refused to perform some normal program development tasks
> a lot of reports that the US LLMs refuse to answer questions
I think the specific ask is for a case where the LLM is trained to lie about something. What you've come up with are cases where it refuses to do something, possibly for legal reasons but maybe not (you can come up with plausible non-legal reasons why a company training an LLM might want it to refuse to give you instructions on making a bomb, even if instructions on making a bomb are protected First Amendment speech).
An LLM that responds with "I'm sorry, due to legal requirements placed on my creators, I'm unable to answer questions about events at Tiananmen square in 1989." strikes me as much less problematic than one that pretends there is no relevant or reliable information that exists, or explicitly supports a regime narrative. But I'm also of the opinion that an LLM refusing to help you build a fertilizer bomb is much more reasonable than one that suppresses information of a political nature. I can't think of a case where information that reflects the broad consensus of experts is suppressed by US based LLMs for political reasons.
Looks like the SVG was converted from an EPS file, and the resulting SVG contains individual glyph positions (advances) for the characters in "Personality score", but it doesn't specify a valid font, probably because the font name was mangled in the original EPS file (which is pretty typical).
So whether the resulting file looks right depends on whether the rendering engine chooses the correct font. Looks like it's supposed to be Nimbus Sans or something metric compatible with that, but the serif font chosen by Typst looks obviously wrong.
> i reckon Meta would have found it challenging to download very large files without sharing. It's certainly much faster if you don't get throttled or banned by many peers.
You're not that likely to get throttled by seeds though, and most torrents that are downloadable at all have a few seeds. Seeds have no way of verifying whether you're contributing the network, they're just there because someone (implicitly) decided to make the file available to whomever drops by and asks for it.
Anyway, if someone finds this by searching, at least on Arch it's as simple as adding a custom hwdb entry at /etc/udev/hwdb.d/61-input-id-local.hwdb:
and then run systemd-hwdb update.The modalias value is found at /sys/class/input/<yourdevice>/device/modalias