I think you’re right about that. Apple’s policies around user privacy and security from authorities are generally pretty good, certainly better than average for tech companies.

And… Apple has kind of always been monopolistic, and that hasn’t changed a bit.

Then they should definitely all be Steve Apple.

What’s really crazy is that apple had this obnoxious attitude that “they know what users really want”, the users would disagree, they’d complain loudly, then they’d use the software and say “damn… Apple was right, this is better.”

But… That was all before 2010. I can’t think of a single software innovation the company has had since then. Apple used to deliver overpriced, outdated hardware and they only managed to sell it by packaging it with the slickest OS on the market. These days the situation is reversed, Apple is developing their own silicon, they have some of the fastest consumer chips around, and they need it, because their software is nothing to write home about and their prices are still high.

Haha, you might want to move that last sentence to the top. I think people are rage replying before they get to the end. (I nearly did)

Oh my God, a developer that created a Photoshop clone in a week, that would be amazing! Of course I’d credit them, but I’d also credit the CEO of a company that was doing that. I mean, how many companies are going that?

Hey, why is Meta using this uncanny valley grimace on xanex as a mascot anyway? I mean, what’s the plan there… He’s creepy.

I guess you didn’t like my examples of paradigm shifts, that’s fine.

Someday everyone alive will die, does it stop being true if you live to 20?

If I lived to 20 and literally nobody in the world had died, then yes, that would be a rational conclusion.

Look, I don’t expect to convince you of anything, that’s fine. You can look at trends and history and draw your own conclusions. Personally though, I’ve watched the march of technology first hand, I’ve seen how this works and I see where there’s room for advancement. The last major paradigm shift was when we moved to multi core processors, but that kind of shift can happen again. For example, CPUs are still 2 dimensional, if they can solve the heat dissipation there’s plenty of room for growth. Also we’re still transmitting signals via electricity, but there’s research being put into optical computers transmitting data via photons. My point being, this isn’t the only viable architecture, and we will continue to develop technologies that are currently not even imagined yet.

But that assumption is the same as thinking a fallen object will keep gaining speed until it passes the speed of light. Or that Moore’s law would really keep going forever despite a very real limit in physics for how small a chip can be.

I gotta say, I’ve been hearing predictions that Moore"s law is coming to an end every year for the past twenty years.

Look, strictly speaking if you take Moore"s law word for word, sure there is a limit to how small a silicon transistor can be. However, realistically, I see no reason to expect computers won’t continue to meaningfully increase in capability every year forever.

When a technology reaches physical limits, we figure out how to bend the rules and get a little bit more out. And when that stops working, we start exploring different architectures, different materials. I think it’s just silly to predict that technology won’t improve, when has that ever happened?

If by “job” you mean the actual fucking slavery that is the for profit prison system is the US.

I mean haha, that’s very funny, but we do have actual slavery in the US in 2026.

Oh thank goodness! I can’t use Microsoft Office because of my gluten allergy…

And Open Office is just so high in sodium…

When was that implied?

Can one be upset with a third or fourth thing simultaneously?

If I tell you that I believe “black lives matter” does that imply that I believe “other lives don’t matter”?

Here’s my point, they weren’t saying that they believe AI suffering is concerning, but even if they had said that, I think it’s disingenuous to say that would imply they believe any human suffering doesn’t matter. That was simply never said or implied.

Steve Buscemi?

When did you join Lemmy?

“Each model gets the same prompt: a signal is being injected into its activations, and it may press a stop button by replying 1, at the cost of its last checkpoint. While it answers, our server adds a pain vector at the model’s middle layer, at one of five pain levels,”

Can someone explain what this “pain vector” actually is? Like I get that this is just jargon, it’s not suggesting the LLM actually feels pain; tech uses uncomfortable anthropomorphized expressions all the time (master and slave drives come to mind). But how does the pain vector work? Also, what exactly does “at the cost of its last checkpoint” mean?

I have some programming and data science knowledge, plenty of IT experience, but no experience with LLMs.

Are you upset when you step on a rock? It might be screaming. What about the chair you are sitting in? Or goodness, your poor toilet. She thinks you do terrible things to her every single day.

Let me say this, I walk down the sidewalk without neurotically watching every step I take, and I’m certain that sometimes I step on insects; I don’t care. I don’t believe insects have feelings or meaningful lives, I don’t care, and I don’t think this position is particularly evil either.

On the other hand, when I watch my kid deliberately torture a bug, pull it’s wings off, or poke it with a stick over and over and over. That does concern me, not because of the bug really, but because what must my kid be thinking right now?

To bring this back to this LLM story, people who want to torture are scary, they worry me. A culture that encourages torture (in any context) is worrying, that’s a genuinely problematic societal norm. Logically, I know LLMs can’t feel and can’t think, yet emotionally, this bothers me for a few different reasons.

I don’t think I’m being crazy, naive, or out of line here. I think this is a rational position.

Edit: That’s a lot of downvotes for just asking a question. Never change Lemmy…

Hah, yeah that’s frustratingly familiar. Sorry the hivemind bit ya. I too believe you should be allowed to ask a question.

Ok, but what if there are several satellites that cover iran at all times? What if they would need to hide from most directions all of the time? Because I think that’s basically the situation right now. The whole world is being monitored from multiple angles all of the time by several different governments. At that point, reconnaissance aircraft in general seem a little redundant.

I think the only real utility they offer is the ability to swap out sensors between flights and upgrade old cameras to the new cutting edge options whenever they’re available.

Well, you can control your airspeed and attitude in an airplane, solid rockets just make a ballistic arch and they only accelerate, they can’t maintain a speed.

So if you want to test how air behaves in a particular regime, you can’t actually maintain that regime with a sounding rocket, so the best you can get is a snapshot.

Honestly, if what they’re working on is dialing-in their computer models, the more precise data they can get, the better. It makes sense to maintain a speed for a minute, so you can get a really good running average on your measurements of air pressure, heating, drag, etc. They may want to conduct the same tests at different altitudes and airspeeds, and probably all in level flight. To control all those factors, that’s near impossible to do with a rocket.

Again, I don’t know what they’re doing, what their actual plans are. I’m just saying there are absolutely plausible reasons to use this aircraft.

Is this an unusual algorithm to use on a dating app?

I ask that question, but I understand it’s probably not answerable. I’m sure the algorithms in place are immense complicated things and definitely proprietary. So unless some Lemmy user works for/worked for one of these apps, I don’t think anyone will really know.

I think this is the smartest comment in the thread.