They’re telling you the year where the new OS will be stable enough that it’s a good idea to upgrade (joke’s on them, I still haven’t “upgraded” to Tahoe…)
TBH Tahoe feels like an especially buggy .0 still. I'm updating as soon as my laptop shows it as available in the hopes that it'll feel closer to a .1 than what Tahoe is.
To be honest, I think we're incredibly lucky to be advancing AI this far already, while the world still has so many non-digitized systems and manual processes. I imagine that in e.g. 50 years, the world will be so connected that it can basically be "conquered" from the internet. I'd much rather have AI burst onto the scene we have today.
I think if you are worried about AI killing us and the like the main protection is the physical world - you can pull the plug. Data centers don't run fast. Alignment is all very well but there will always be bad humans to tell it to do bad stuff which is why you get malware in traditional software.
Yeah it's a twisted sort of logic but I do agree that it would be much worse to have an AI breakaway event after we've replaced all our militaries with autonomous kill-bots. And look how the advent of AI has triggered a race to develop autonomous weaponry.
That said, a misaligned AI could absolutely do catastrophic, civilization-crippling damage with today's Internet alone.
bout 5 months ago i gave it 2 hours of my life and asked for a refund once i realized i had basically seen the whole game in that first like 30 minutes of playing.
the only game that seems to hit the mark of what im actually itching for is star citizen that is in a perpetual state of never-finished but i can't even quite put a finger on what it is i'm after. beauty, art, real weather, being able to fly up through the atmosphere and just let me escape into a sci fi movie. i can acknowledge star citizen has actually come a long ways and i think they do deliver that, though i haven't played it myself just going off vids ive seen.
NMS somehow feels like a visual and playable interpretation of depression to me with a Dr. Seuss world backdrop lol. Like it reminds me of times in my life where I've just been stuck in the motions, unhappy, resigning myself to the fate of doing absolutely nothing of inspiration because I felt like I had no other options and gave up.
Shout outs to steam for refunding when my reason was "This game is actually depressing"
It is a good start, but in the last 50 years, Russia has started maybe 1 or 2 wars at most, arguably. Can you even count the U.S. wars? I mean, I really wish U.S did start to imitate Russia more.
Ukraine, Georgia, Afghanistan, Chechnya. These are clear-cut with Russia as the driving aggressor. All the other 20 or so in eg. Mali and Dagestan might be less so, but should probably also be counted.
By that logic the US independence war (1775-1783) was not a ”war” either because the colonies were part of England. Neither were the war of 1861-1865 between the northern and southern states. Can’t be at war with yourself?
Not really (unless it was at least recently a different country), I wouldn't call what ETA or IRA were doing a war, Google calls it (separatist) campaign and I tend to agree, though first words which came to my mind were separatist movements and terrorism (though I can see their reasoning).
With Palestine vs Israel I would tend to call it a war since Palestine's own country was taken and it is occupied by different artifically created country, so I would say it is two countries at war.
US invaded by proxy through arming and supporting Islamists to destabilise a fairly legitimate government because it was aligned with Russia.
Think if Russia today arms an anti-democracy militia in Canada in order to destabilise USA. Any subsequent invasion of Canada by US would be a natural order of power play.
"Invaded by proxy" is not actually a thing. You're trying to make arming an insurgency sound equivalent to a full-on invasion, and they are not equivalent.
The US did not arm the Islamists in order to destabilize Russia, just a Russian client. In response, Russia invaded and removed the client government - the very government that the Islamists were trying to remove.
If Russia today armed an anti-democracy militia in Canada, would the US invade Canada? No (at least, any previous administration would not). We would share intel, help cut off the flow of arms, maybe even do a joint operation against the militia. But conquer Canada? Why would we do that?
So your analogy is as flawed as your moral equivalence.
"Invasion by proxy" is very much a thing. And I am not trying to make it sound like equivalent to a full-on invasion, like the one the US did later on, but it is a thing the same way "being in a proxy war" is a thing, and of course, that is not the same as being "full-on at war".
Insisting on dichotomy between attempting to destabilise a union or one of it's bordering states, a client/satellite state is clutching at the straws.
You overlook categorical differences where it matters and then makeup binary lines for nuanced and things that happen on a spectrum like destabilisation where it is convenient for you. That is lazy at best, or dishonest at worst.
> But conquer Canada? Why would we do that?
You seem to have no idea about US is conduct with it's allies throughout history where it comes to her interests priority. Henry Kissinger didn't say "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." because he felt like it. It is a reflection of US's modus operandi. Liberia, Panama, Argentine Junta, Iraq, Iran, Iraqi Kurds of 70s, Peshmarga of 2020s, Nicaragua in 80s, endless examples.
The problem is not with the analogy, it is your lack of understanding of US's modus operandi and her historical conduct.
I'd argue the US only got dragged into lots of conflicts because of its role as de-facto global hegemon.
A lot of wars it did not really start; if you blame the US for Vietnam (instead of the french), you also have to count South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transistria and Chechnya 1 & 2 on the Russian side.
The industrialized nations that actually did laudably little warmongering in the last half centuries are (somewhat ironically) the core WW2-axis powers: Italy, Austria, Germany, Japan; despite having plenty of "opportunities" to start something (e.g. over Königsberg/Silesia, Dalmatia, Kuril islands, ...)
> you blame the US for Vietnam (instead of the french)
I'm all for saying french caused a lot of death and destruction, but the Vietnam war was clearly created by the US during the 1954 Geneva Conference. Also, US-British involvement in France politics during the Indochina war (under Truman: Roosevelt didn't had to deal with Dixiecrats and give racist idiots a new enemy) probably made the 'sale guerre' last way longer that it had to.
My view is that France tried to hold on to Indochina unjustifiably for almost a decade after WW2.
So they get the blame because the US could have hardly escalated a proxy war without proxies.
Not saying America is blameless though, but I do blame France for setting the whole thing up basically (split Vietnam), and for all the wrong reasons, too.
You ought to remember that 40% of french voted communist in 48. Without heavy involvement of CIA and MI6 to curb the movements (including assassinations), the sentiment would probably have grow, which would have stopped the war (also, now that I think about it, it also means that the soviet are even biggest culprits on this as they did kill more french leftist in 5 years than everyone else combined). The more centrist government also would have tried to get out by 49 without the heavy British investment, and later USA support. And during the peace deal in 54, the milk toast also known as Mendes France accepted a first peace deal that the US then refused, and the division of Vietnam was probably US decision too.
Not counting China (and South Korea) because they joined the "industrialized" club much later than the rest, but so far it is looking good, and I'm somewhat hopeful because their demographics make war an increasingly risky proposition.
Can we stop with this already? American oligarchs are perfectly able to destroy the country on their own. And they've been very transparent about their intentions to do so for a long time.
Both can be true. Trump and family do have very deep Russian connections in terms of financing. That's very true. His own sons have admitted it. Trump has said he loves Russian banks.
American oligarchs are also schmoozing trump, clearly, because he's an easy mark.
I haven't used Kimi K3 or GLM 5.3, but boy am I glad they exist! Every time an open weights model is released a bit closer to the frontier models, that's another level of performance that we, the users, can't lose access to no matter if the frontier labs jack up prices out of our reach, or the US administration decides to put a full export block in place on AI.
The madman and the genius are similar in that they disagree with the world at large/prevailing wisdom. Where they differ is that the madman loses the fight while the genius (eventually) wins.
It's my impression that it's common in western culture, where text is read left to right, and timelines are visualized as going from left to right, to also animate things going from left to right, since westerners thus have an instinct that "right = forward", so it "feels right" (familiar). I wonder to which degree this is reflected in the training data? And if you'd be more likely to get left-facing pelicans if you prompted it in Hebrew, Arabic or another right-to-left language?
Years ago, I lived in NYC, and my roommate was a director of photography for National Geographic, and various other nature documentaries. I loved photography (still do, but much less time for it as a late 30s adult than a mid 20s adult), and she was kind enough to answer any question I had regarding film/photo.
She told me that "left to right" denoted progression in the story, "right to left" told the viewer the subject was "exiting" the current scene.
She didn't go into the details of WHY, and I probably didn't probe deeper, but it stuck with me, and I notice it all the time in film and television.
As a counterpoint, I did a quick image search on Kagi with "person on a bicycle", and I ended up with 12-left-pointed bicycles, only 3-right-pointed bicycles, 3 facing the camera, and 1 facing away from the camera — looking at photos above the fold (first screen). Even looking below, the pattern seems to continue, though not as prominently (I'd say 3:2 in favour of left-pointing bikes).
Obviously, not scientific.
All the left-pointing bicycles did not look weird to me either.
Stripe has a lot of money, but not a lot of AI-buzzword compliance. OpenRouter is highly AI-buzzword compliant, but doesn't have a lot of money. It's a match made in heaven
I'm wondering if some of Opus' chain of thought patterns have bled into its "human readable text output" circuitry. E.g. some of them that I stumbled on, "the bug is in the lock, not the query" reads like some of the shorthands it might use in its own chain of thought.
Entirely possible, it always leaked but it's particularly bad in most recent models. Actually almost all issues with creative writing in LLMs are artifacts of either instruction tuning, alignment training, or CoT RL and seeding (newer models have CoT data even in pretraining).
This is my impression as well, that an exaggeratedly precise yet bad at communication with humans way of talking snuck in through reasoning RL, that it might be useful when it talks to itself (CoT)
reply