There was a recent paper claiming that LLMs were better at avoiding toxic speech if it was actually included in their training data, since models that hadn’t been trained on it had no way of recognizing it for what it was. With that in mind, maybe using reddit for training isn’t as bad an idea as it seems.
They’re busy researching new and exciting ways of denying coverage.
IIRC, they weren’t trying to stop them—they were trying to get the scrapers to pull the content in a more efficient format that would reduce the overhead on their web servers.
This is one thing I can see an actual use case for (as an external tool, not as part of WP): Create a summary, not of the article itself, but of the prerequisite background knowledge. And tailored to the reader’s existing knowledge—like, “what do I need to know to understand this article assuming I already know X but not Y or Z”.
I assume it’s because it reduces the possibility of other processes outside of the linked containers accessing the files (so security and stability).
The basic idea behind the researchers’ data compression algorithm is that if an LLM knows what a user will be writing, it does not need to transmit any data, but can simply generate what the user wants them to transmit on the other end
Great… but if that’s the case, maybe the user should reconsider the usefulness of transmitting that data in the first place.
AlphaEvolve verifies, runs and scores the proposed programs using automated evaluation metrics. These metrics provide an objective, quantifiable assessment of each solution’s accuracy and quality.
Yeah, that’s the way genetic algorithms have worked for decades. Have they figured out a way to turn those evaluation metrics directly into code improvements, or do they just keep doing a bunch of rounds of trial and error?
It’s just the name of Google’s AI division.
No doubt Proton’s CEO will use this to justify his “Trump is better for regulating big tech” claim, while ignoring that the judge is an Obama appointee.
I like Molly White’s recent take, that it might be more productive to treat this as a labor issue instead of a copyright issue (at least in principle). Even if the AI corporations aren’t technically re-selling copyrighted works, they’re still profiting from the authors’ unpaid labor.
It just depends on which type of serifs he puts on the X.
Internal server (Home Assistant etc.): domus
External server (Nextcloud etc.): nimbus
Router/firewall: murus
And the honeybee populations least in need of saving are the big commercial operations this tech seems targeted toward. (These operations typically park their hives in random rural locations between jobs, where their bees raid and outcompete local pollinators and carry diseases from region to region.)
I believe so—see Wake-on-LAN.
Are the people who would have bought Teslas now buying other EVs, or passing on buying a new car altogether?
That’s like saying you can continue to do business with the guy who keeps trying to stab you, if you stay out of arm’s reach.
It’s not wrong, but it’s ignoring the underlying issue.
As long as you don’t observe it.
The optimist in me says they’re doing this to avoid piracy.
Won’t pirates just buy their source copies on a different platform, so now Amazon loses the original sale as well?
Although a chessboard has only 64 squares, there are 1040 possible legal chess moves and between 10111 to 10123 total possible moves — which is more than the total number of atoms in the universe.
You’d think a website called “LiveScience” would be able to use exponents in article copy correctly. (Or at least have reviewers who know that there are more atoms in the universe than there are in a small protein molecule.)
So… not so much a case of ChatGPT trying to avoid being shut down, as ChatGPT recognizing that agents generally tend to be self-preserving. Which seems like a principle that anything with an accurate world model would be aware of.