Some company (might have been Yahoo or AOL) once released a dataset of searches for researchers to use. Researchers were able to deanonymize one that was searching for, amongst other things, how to kill one's wife. It turned out he was a happily married screenwriter for crime shows.
That's an argument you could make if police had to obtain warrants to access them. But they do not, at least in the US (things might be different in Canada where this happened, but I doubt it). Instead, they rely on rulings that there is no expectation of privacy in public. By the same principle, it's perfectly valid and legal for a civilian (or group of civilians) to set up an equivalent system to track police.
As you say this is Canada, so I don't particular care what the situation is in a totally different country where this didn't happen. Even in the US it's not as though "Warrants are for suckers" is just the law of the land, you and I and millions of others have and had the chance to weigh in on that. The fact that most people don't notice or care does make that sort of thing extremely difficult and frustrating, but that's not the same as it being futile or equivalent to "Guy sets up surveillance network to make a point and get media attention."
The point is that only someone already working there would have proficiency with all the software they use internally, so by listing those as requirements they can ensure no external candidate is eligible for the job the green card applicant is doing.
What about applications like distributed computing using volunteer computers, instead of datacenters? You can't really do that with normal backprop approaches. E.g. for LC0 the training data is generated in a distributed manner, but the neural nets themselves are trained centrally.
> The Unicode Standard defines plain text essentially as a sequence of character codes, without the additional formatting information associated with rich text. Fonts, colors, layout, and similar presentation details belong somewhere else.
Nope. Skintones are part of Unicode. It also has 33 control characters from ASCII including one that rings a bell... There are also numerous characters added by Unicode that are literally called "layout controls".
If you want a format that provides purely semantic information, then "plaintext" doesn't fit the bill.
“Reading a document like this isn’t just difficult—it is punishing.”
I’d be curious whether the author composed this sentence himself or it was the output of AI. Personally I often find myself “it’s not X it’s Y” and then recoiling in disgust and rephrasing it simply because AI has made it so grating from overuse.
It could go into personalization / memory. Or they could be A/B testing some system prompt tuning and consider the thumbs up / thumbs down as statistical feedback on the particular flags that are enabled for your account.
How would going leveraged on the S&P 500 because they expect long term rapid GDP growth help them with short term cash flow to invest in AI training that will enable that rapid GDP growth?
Because the market is forward-looking, and brings all future cashflows to the present.
If it became clear by 2027 that GDP growth would permanently reach 15% (I didn't make that absurdly stupid chart, they did), S&P 500 valuations would immediately 100X or more.
They could take out a credit line against those gains and have unlimited money.
Wait...are you suggesting those predictions might be so unrealistic that its stupid to even publish them? I'm shocked!
Are you saying that instead of investing in training right now they'll get higher ROI by pausing training for a year, and investing their money into taking out long positions on the stock market, all on the hope that what they label the "Extreme scenario" comes to pass?
If even their modest scenario becomes consensus by next year, the market will 2X or more. They could easily leverage that to 10X returns.
Their business is not going to 10X cash flows next year, so yes, that would be the smart move if they thought even the short term modest scenario was happening.
They don't think that though. Hence why this blog post is stupid to even publish.
It's like me publishing a "What will our future look like?" blog post where I think I'm the center of the universe and draw a chart that says:
Modest scenario: I take a bowel movement so big it opens a wormhole and destroys humanity
reply