Ah, I see. That makes sense, but to be fair I think that was expected. I suspect they also pull the same data from every page where adsense is embedded regardless of browser, e.g., and every other company out there is aggregating the same sort of data every possible place they can get it from (shared sign ins, etc etc)
Edit: It’s definitely a particularly bad look when there are several things in there that representatives for Google have apparently lied about over the years.
Forgive me for not reading all 2500 documents, but I haven’t heard anything to suggest there was a bunch of sinister stuff in there – and there’s nothing implicitly evil about having docs leaked.
Or you can subscribe to gamepass for games, unlimited games
I think the trouble is, what baby are we throwing out with the bathwater in this case? We can’t prevent LLMs from hallucinating (but we can mitigate it somewhat with carefully constructed prompts). So, use cases where we’re okay with that are fair game, but any use case (or in this case, law?) that would require the LLM never hallucinates aren’t attainable, and to get back earlier, this particular problem has nothing to do with capitalism.
This is a thing that is true of all LLMs, but it seems like you’re misunderstanding the core issue. It CAN give outputs like that sometimes. What we CAN’T do is force it to give outputs like that ALL the time.
It will answer “I don’t know” if its predictive text model guesses that the most common response to this would be “I don’t know”. To do that, to simplify a little, you could imagine that it reads your question, compares that to all the text in its training data, and tries to find the conversation that looks most like the question you asked, then answers whatever the person in the training data answered. But your exact question wasn’t in its training data, so if you took that mental model, and instead had it compare to 1000 similar looking things in its training model and average them, then it would hopefully do a better job of coming up with something at least close to what you actually asked. Now take it to a million, or a billion.
When we’re asking questions about the real world, we would prefer for it to answer based on knowledge about the real world. But what if it “matches” data from a work of fiction? Or just someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about? Or true information, but about a different subject?
It doesn’t know anything. It doesn’t understand anything you say. It just looks at patterns that it learned from the training data and tries to guess what words are most likely to be said in that case. In other words, “here’s one case where it didn’t hallucinate” and “it will never hallucinate” are not the same thing at all.
Edit: To clarify, it doesn’t search its training data to answer your question, so asking “was this in the training data” is impossible. By the time you interact with it, the data is long gone. It was just used for training.
Surely there’s a breakpoint with plants though, right? You could transport a few plants, but probably not a whole garden, or a flower bed, or a tree old enough to have deep roots, etc
My point wasn’t that the status quo is good or right. There’s a fundamental problem if the person most motivated to improve the property - the tenant actually living there - isn’t the one who the system rewards for doing so.
Pretending the system we have today is different than it is is just denying reality, and isn’t an effective way to realize change. The reality that we live in is that by improving your own home while renting, you’re a sucker who is being taken advantage of by the system.
There’s a fundamental difference between furniture and an improvement to the underlying property itself. For example, if you repaint a fence, you can’t take the paint with you, and the value of the paint itself was far lower than the labor cost to apply it to the fence.
One problem it has is that it can be REALLY slow sometimes. Like any turn based strategy game, map size has an exponential effect on how long a game takes, but the mechanics of wesnoth lean a lot more towards larger maps.
I’m mostly talking about multiplayer though. For singleplayer there’s about a hundred million campaigns to play so you could probably play it forever.
That’s not a great argument at all. Assuming a rent agreement with say a 1-year term, there’s a huge difference between trying to change rent in the middle of the contract period (obviously violates the contract unless it has specific provisions for this, which is also unlikely in most places) and asking for higher rent to renew for another term (which Occam’s razor says presumably is happening here). A farmer renting farmland would never be leasing for less time than it will take their crops to grow, as that would obviously be an insane risk.
The better point here is on improving the property. Some rental contracts I’ve seen have terms where if the tenant spends money improving the property they get some kickback (part of it can be reduced from rent, e.g.). If you’re improving property someone else owns for free and expect not to be taken advantage of, then I don’t know what to tell you except that you’re a sucker.
If there are takeaways from this post, it’s either that 1) more jurisdictions should include stuff about this as part of their legal protections for tenants, or 2) don’t be a sucker and give your landlord money for free.
Edit: if I wasn’t clear, my point was that imo there should be better policies around tenants improving the homes they live in to begin with (because obviously nothing here was illegal)
TWENTY WHOLE DOLLARS
TWENTY BUKAROONIES LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TWENTY O’ DEM BIG ONES
XP-based progression isn’t always padding. It definitely isn’t hard to find examples where it is, but it’s also a pretty good solution to a common problem: you want the game to present a hero’s journey, where you start out weak and eventually become powerful, but you want a generic way to handle the players’ progress.
It’s really the same as the debate in TTRPGs like D&D, where the DM could either reward levels based on XP earned from killing monsters, or could forego that altogether and award levels at set points in the story. In a video game setting where you intend things to be really open ended / the player should have a lot of freedom about what tasks they do and in what order, it’s hard to handcraft exactly what each player’s adventure and progression should look like, so an XP system is a really simple way to generalize it for everyone.
It’s only padding if it requires you to engage with a lot of content that you otherwise wouldn’t want to do, before you can progress the story you’re actually interested in. But that’s not the fault of the system itself, it’s in how the designers chose to use it.
Both of the examples you give are Id - and to be honest, I feel like this was always more of an Id thing than it was an overall trend
I agree in general, but 20 years ago, people were using email to actually talk to each other. There are problems with the protocol, but those aren’t related to the way it is federated imo. The reason people stopped using email to talk to each other was because the features of newer options were better – things like IMs and Skype, which have continued to evolve into stuff like WhatsApp or whatever people use now. But, unlike email that was devised in an era when things were still being driven largely by the education sector etc, all these other solutions were made by post-dotcom era profit-driven companies.
So I agree that email has lots of problems, and some of those are certainly related to its federation (e.g., the protocol has not really been able to advance in significant ways since making changes to it is nearly impossible). But I still think it’s the best example of a federated messaging protocol we have today.
Anyway that’s all a bit afield, as you said. I think the bottom line for me is that whichever protocol it is, if one of these current attempts at federation is going to meet my goals, then eventually there should be a large number of commercial entities participating. I know that’s not everyone’s goal though, but there’s a reason I don’t use IRC for example.
Something like 80% of email goes through Google and Apple. But, email is just about the most successful federated protocol we have. Also, I believe that these services would have become huge regardless, and I’m glad that they are dominant while using an open protocol instead of something they can exert much more control over.
In an ideal world, I believe the goal for federated social media is that you don’t care what platform other users you interact with are on, and they can freely move to other platforms without compromise. It’s scary if a big corpo controls too much marketshare and can break compatibility with other apps. But, if the protocol is truly open, there can’t be any barrier to corpos launching services on the protocol either.
I tend to agree when everyone is worried about an already existing major player joining federation (e.g. FB with threads). But bluesky is a new entrant to the space; they will have to fight the existing giants for market anyway. And if they’re starting small, then them being federated means that as soon as they start to get credible traction, any other company would be able to launch their own app in the same space. If the scare of big players is that they’ll choose to one day stop playing nicely with federation, then it will definitely be easier for them to say “you can no longer chat with a few random FOSS weirdos” than to say “you can no longer chat with this other major app”.
tl;dr, for me the goal isn’t to have a protocol that can only talk to other people who care about FOSS; it’s to have a way to talk to everyone. Eventually, that means that I hope we do hit a critical mass of “big players” buying in, even if they’re motivated by profit.
To some extent I feel like the inverse of this would be “do you wish Gmail wasn’t federated?”
They were remastered (which I think hurts the original argument), but I as I understand, the question of which is better is pretty divisive
There’s nothing implicit about “opening the project in unity” that needs to be a trigger for terms to change.
If you make and distribute a game made in unity, then you are distributing some unity IP. You would need the license holder to grant you permission to do that. The terms you agree to with unity are what grant you the right to distribute this.
So this has very little to do with “have you opened the editor lately”, and is more similar to when e.g. Dead By Daylight has to stop selling a dlc character because they don’t renew an agreement with the rights holders.
That feels remarkably intellectually honest. I doubt if I would have replied again in that case, so I don’t know why anyone was downvoting this