But imo, the really high quality of Nolan’s visual directing does so much work distracting people from how lacking the movie is in actual substance.

Kind of describes most of Nolan’s movies really. As a technical director, he’s almost unparalleled, but his movies have often struggled to find a meaningful emotional core. They’re all polish, but often lacking in substance. Tenet was especially bad for this. An absolute masterpiece of directorial craftsmanship, but almost entirely devoid of basic elements like characters.

He’s made some absolute gems - The Dark Knight still holds up, Memento deserves its reputation, and The Prestige is a masterpiece - but I find that for the most part he seems more interested in technical flexes than in the actual story he’s telling. I’ve enjoyed every single one of his movies, don’t get me wrong, but they don’t stick with me the way that something like Prisoners or Only God Forgives does.

Yes, there’s a very clear difference between the political posture of our present rearmament and the investment in the military that took place in the mid-2000s. The latter was driven by a desire to align with the US on foreign policy objectives. They were there, so we needed to be there too. This was both an extension of a long-standing policy of Canada as global peacekeepers - a way to build our soft-power by establishing presence as a neutral power - and an extension of our desire to align with and support the US as our closest ally (that these two goals directly conflict is a big part of what went wrong with Afghanistan).

Our present rearmament is driven by the exact opposite impetus. Rather than aligning with the US we are seeking to detach from them. Rather than extending our reach into the world, we are seeking to protect ourselves from the reach of others. And in doing so we are working to protect those who cannot. I can tell you that the people of Latvia are deeply grateful for the Canadian military. They know first hand the threat that Putin presents, and we’re what’s stopping it.

I don’t want to live in a world where any kind of military is necessary. But as long as it is, we have to be pragmatic.

And more importantly, we have to recognize that it is not the military, but the use of the military that matters most. When we allow our politicians to take a practical tool and turn it to impractical or immoral ends, that is when tragedy happens.

Simply hating the military in all its forms, and arguing against any kind of military spending, is a very easy position for leftists to adopt. It requires no thought, no nuance. It’s a thought terminating cliche. Military bad, end of statement. When asked why, people gesture at all of the bad things militaries have been involved in and treat that as evidence. And when people on the right turn unthinking adoration of the military into a shibboleth for their beliefs, it only reinforces the pattern. “The right loves it, so I should hate it.”

It takes a lot more work to actually examine the military as an extension of our political policies, as the means by which a great deal of our politics is enacted, and as a tool that serves many purposes including self-defence and the defence of others, but that work needs to happen if we’re ever going to start addressing these topics rationally.

And that, kids, is what happens when you add energy to a system while simultaneously releasing the potential energy already stored there.

Completely correct.

Been using Seafile for years, it’s fantastic.

This is a drop in the bucket for OpenAI. They already make $40bn a year in revenue, and that’s not even close to enough to cover their staggering capex and compute costs.

Also, for anyone who doesn’t know, an “annualized” figure means you take a single month and multiply it by 12. If I sell my car for $15,000, I can claim an annualized income of $180,000 when in reality the money I made from selling cars that year is still only going to be $15,000. It’s a number that allows them to cherry pick one good month and then act as if every month is like that.

As for the claim that it shows “excellent growth”, this is equally meaningless. It’s like me extrapolating that my three month old puppy will be the size of New York City in three years based on their current growth rate. Growth doesn’t just continue in a flat line forever.

No, but even animals learn to repeat a behavior when it’s rewarded.

It’s the exact sort of childish bullshit that we should expect from an ignorant moron like Ford. Everyone else went “OK, whatever” and ignored the whole thing because it’s childish bullshit, and then Ford had to go and validate the whole thing by building a sign to prove just how much it definitely absolutely 100% for sure did not bother him no sir not even in the slightest. This is literally the exact response Trump is looking for.

Oh hell yes! Awesome update.

They’re being put through hell, to put it quite bluntly.

A lot of this would be more manageable if they had some sense that they were actually doing some kind of good with their sacrifice. There’s been extensive study on this subject, and one thing that comes up time and again is that soldiers who have a clear sense of what they’re doing and why - basically, what the hell they’re actually fighting for - show far better mental resilience and far lower incidences of PTSD and other traumas. But for these poor bastards, even their commander in chief seems to have no idea what they’re actually doing there, and their secretary of defense is too busy freaking out about the transgenders to actually give a shit. So, little hope of that.

See, now you’ve flipped from making a legal judgement to making a moral one. I’m not defending the people who work on Grok. You’re allowed to think whatever you like of anyone who willingly takes a job for a Nazi. But there’s a difference between moral liability and legal liability. Even if I have precious little respect for those people, laws matter, because whatever legal standard you apply to someone else, you have to be willing to apply to yourself.

My understanding of hashing is a math function that reduces information.

Close, but not quite. A hash is better understood as a “fingerprint” for a given piece of data. Any given input will produce the same length of output, so it doesn’t really “reduce” information - a hash of “Hello world” would actually be significantly longer - but rather it identifies a matching piece of data.

This has a number of uses. For example,if you have a password system on a website, you don’t store a user’s actual password. That would be terrible for security. Instead you store the hash (yes, salted, for that one pedant who was about to interject). Then when the user enters their password to log in, you hash the entered password and compare it to the stored hash. If they match, you know they’re the same string. You can also create a hash of a file and provide that along with the file itself. If the receiver also hashes the file, they can then compare their hash to yours; if they don’t match, the file is corrupt or has been tampered with. You’ll often see this referred to as a checksum.

Technically, the reproducible data from a hash should be zero, so they don’t so much contain information as verify it. But as we’ve seen from that research, there are ways around that (not the only ones, to be sure). But the idea in theory is that you produce a hash through a one-directional algorithm; very easy to compute A from B, but very, very hard to compute B from A.

It should be noted that this is very different from stenography, which is a variety of systems for storing data, not fingerprinting it. Hashing is also distinct from encryption as a means of securing data, because encryption is intended to be reversible, hashing is not.

Yeah, it’s absolutely valid to question the degree to which this is an outcome that we should even want. If someone hides a CSAM image in the Linux kernel should Linux become illegal?

I think there is a valid distinction to be drawn in this case, because removing individual components of an LLM isn’t really something we know how to do. So there’s a fair argument that a model which is built using illegal content should be illegal, and if that means they have to completely retrain from scratch, so be it.

But yes, I’d want to be very careful about the lines around a law or ruling like that and exactly what it’s extent is. Child sex crimes and child safety are topics that tend to short-circuit all reasonable objections, and are frequently exploited as a means of getting bad laws onto the books. Bill C-22 up here in Canada is a great recent example.

Military life is hard. Even non-combat deployments are incredibly stressful. I know so many guys who broke up with their partners within a month of starting their first roto. It’s not easy to be away from your friends and family for extended periods of time, and it’s not easy being around the same coworkers 24/7 in a god damn pressure cooker with no privacy or alone time.

For the sailors on the Lincoln, it’s much, much worse. No internet because they’re under combat conditions, moldy showers, not enough food, broken down laundries, failing infrastructure… It’s a nightmare. What these guys are dealing with is not normal, and no sane military would have kept this deployment running as long as they have.

Mental resilience is a huge component of being a part of any military. It’s the single most important skill a soldier, sailor or airman can have. Being a good shot or able to ruck thirty miles are useless if you crack as soon as the shooting starts. But mental resilience can only carry you so far. This situation is well beyond what anyone is trained to deal with.

But unfortunately the US Military is being run by a draft dodger and a guy whose service record consisted of throwing keggers, so “mental health” is something that only happens to queers and liberals, and they probably think that the guys jumping off the deck are paid by Soros. This is only going to get worse. Apparently, the Lincoln is being given 3 days of R&R and then it’s back to the endless hell with them.

deleted by creator

If you came into work today to find your building full of feds packing up evidence, because it turned out that, entirely unbeknownst to you, five members of the C-suite had been running a child sex ring, would you consider yourself “complicit”?

deleted by creator

You can’t reproduce an approximation from any type of hash, so that argument is dead in the water.

https://www.pseudodna.eu/. Scroll down to “Hash reversal” where they demonstrate the technique.

Do you understand what I mean by stenographically embedded?

I took it to be an imperfect attempt to describe more broadly the way that data is mathematically encoded into LLMs.

Technically, stenography would require that the original be retrievable, since stenographic embedding is the process of concealing one thing inside another. Stenos, from the Greek “covered”. Personally, I’d argue that to conceal, you have to be able to reveal. If I throw a photograph into a fire I haven’t hidden the image in the fire. Modern stenographic image embedding techniques use methods of encoding data into another dataset without visibly altering the second set, with the intent being that that data can later be retrieved by someone who knows that it’s there (eg, least significant bit, where you change only the “1” bit of each pixel. This imperceptibly shifts the colour values of the image to a human viewer, but allows you to read out that stored data at a later time).

Now, since your argument rests on the exact opposite, that the data is not retrievable, I simply accepted the term as a “close enough” approximation for what I believe we’re both talking about - the extremely complex multidimensional data arrangement that forms the core of an LLM - and carried on from there because I find that sometimes it’s better to just roll with a person’s choice of language rather than quibble over it.

But since you clearly feel that your meaning was either improperly expressed, or improperly understood, you’re welcome to elaborate.

That’s what courts exist to decide.

Yeah, the stakes are just too high for SpaceX to let this get to trial. Any amount of illegality becomes worth it when you consider the alternative.

The only other possibility I can see is that they pull a Bungie; “perform an internal investigation”, find an intern to blame for everything, and throw a huge settlement at Jane Doe. But even that would require an absolutely insane cover up to pull off.