The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. The solution was to have many competing factions. I think first-past-the-post, corporate election influence, and mass media consolidated power into a single faction that ended up causing the system to break down (in that the branches don't seem to be checking each other's power right now).
No singular person, it's more the value of having a large database. You visit a coffee shop, a stalker collects your dna from a fingerprint and uses the a leaked or sold database from 23andme to tie it to your identity or home address, etc.
Interestingly this also works if a direct relative has used it as well.
One advantage of uuids is they can be generated on several distributed systems without having to check with each other that they are unique. Only long ids make this reliable. Youtube ids are random and short, but youtube has to check they are unique when generating them.
Maybe one way is to split up a random assignment space and assign to each distributed node, but that would be more complex.
Having tons of people employ human ingenuity to manipulate existing LLMs into passing this one benchmark kind of defeats the purpose of testing for "AGI". The author points this out as it's more of a pattern matching test.
Though on the other hand figuring out which manipulations are effective does teach us something. And I think most problems boil down to pattern matching, creating a true, easily testable AGI test may be tough.
That's 5 years if one person worked on it nonstop without sleeping and each item took 60 seconds.
I would assume they probably sit in a secure location and items on display or items leaving/transferred are catalogued first so there's bit of a triage and backlog.
Museums probably don't want to turn down valuable item donations even if they don't have the resources to catalogue if right away.
Not a lawyer but those contracts aren't legal. You need something called "consideration" ie something new of value to be legal. They can't just take away something of value that was already agreed upon.
However they could add this to new employee contracts.
The training jurisdiction one is interesting. Are future companies going to exclusively train their models in a copyright lack country?
Seems like jurisdiction would be based on the copyright of the allegedly infringed images, and UK-based users creating copyright infringing copies in the UK.
But that's apparently not the law or case law in the UK yet.
If you haven't used aws a lot then you might not know this but the old instance types stick around and you can still use them, especially as "spot" which lets you bid for server time.
I had a science project which was cpu bound and it turns out because people bid based on the performance, the old chips end up costing the same in terms of cpu work done/$ (older chips cost less per hr but do less).
aws though was by far the most expensive so switching to like oracle with their ampere arm was a lot cheaper for me.
I don't think that's quite right, Microsoft's main game was keeping the money train going by any means necessary, they have staked so much on copilots and Enterprise/Azure Open AI. So much has been invested into that strategic direction and seeing Google swoop in and out-innovate Microsoft would be a huge loss.
Either by keeping OpenAI as-is, or the alternative being moving everyone to Microsoft in an attempt to keep things going would work for Satya.
Just to add another perspective, isn't sales like this at any large company? Sales is pushed hard on quotas/targets and so look for any way possible to hit those. In other words were these requests taken seriously by the product managers and leadership?
USPS I think from a branding perspectives wants to be compared to retail shipping and not come across and some stuffy/slow bureaucratic agency, even though they totally are.