There are live dealers with shoes of real cards with most online crypto cainos. Though, who knows if they are cheating somehow. My point was, the attacker doesn't have to bet the entire deposit. Just make it seem like they are playing.
I'm starting to have them gather info to feed into automated tooling for drafting tasks. It's just there's no good harness for my field (and only recently have models been able to read symbolic things well enough)
So why are software "engineers" stamping all of this slop? Could it be because they are forced to do so in order to "leverage ai"? Or maybe it's just the shitty and mediocre engineers doing so while the rest are labelled luddites?
Specifically what exactly is preventing the same pattern of fire competence and force mediocrity to sign off from working in any other area? The risk of catastrophic failure? There's insurance for that, another domain that's a harness around a model (albeit not a large language one, yet).
"There's insurance for that, another domain that's a harness around a model"
Yes, but the PE's at engineering firms have the ability to say no and demand redesigns since it's their name on it, unlike programmers.
I frequently see firms design way beyond the bare minimum so that there's no question and it's an easy sign off rather than spending months on a back and forth.
Head architects at software firms had the ability to say no to generated code and demand redesigns. They were pushed out for being "backwards thinking".
As to your second point, that just means that the training corpus is already designed with a healthy margin of error.
Yes. I don't think this formulation of 9ball is solvable in less than 9 weighings because it doesn't allow you to weigh groups of balls. A set of balls is not an object, so it can't be put on the left or right side of the scale
If I was put in place of the LLM I legitimately couldn't tell if the intended solution is to ignore the wording and solve 9balls, or if this is a trick question to check if I spew out a memorized answer without considering the actual wording of the problem
I think you can do it in 5 weightings, because a 0 eliminates both balls. Worst case:
scale(1,2) = 0
scale(3,4) = 0
scale(5,6) = 0
scale(7,8) = -1 # If it was zero, the counterfeit would be ball #9.
scale(6,7) = 0 # Must compare to a known-good ball. Here #8 is counterfeit.
I hope there's an indie carveout or something for less than like 200k revenue.
And maybe a carveout if your licensing gets pulled.
I really want copyright to stay the hell out of the way of just letting players reverse engineer old games, but it's an international thing at this point
We have a right to own our videogame, there is absolutely no necessity to have an exclusion, make the server open source if you want to shutdown the server
I'm pointing out it's potentially a few weeks of effort.
"The right to own games" is just an entitlement. I don't see an argument for where this originates; it's entitlement to someone else's effort, or effectively mandating only selling games with that extra effort bundled in.
I don't think it's fair to expect hobby projects or small studios to be legally obligated to carry this, and open sourcing it because you sold it once is a big jump. Not all binaries are simple to ship, either.
I'm fine with the Californian law where they mandate marking it as a license and not a purchase, but a flat fee for minimum 10 years service I think is reasonable.
Everything is entitlement, of course. Videogames are not a necessity. But our parents could pass their music collection to their kids, and we want the same for ourselves with videogames.
Most indie games will have no problems with this either, so I am not concerned.
Clearly the market hasn't worked well for the consumer, so it's time to set laws.
reply