I find it interesting how people say "The US" to refer to groups under the US government that are often completely at odds with the interests of the actual US public. There are virtually no Americans who want our government to be acting in the interests of arms manufacturers except the arms manufacturers themselves and the politicians they pay.

How many groups do you know in other countries that you refer to by name rather than the name of the country and the general idea that the government of that country must represent at least at some significant level the will of it's people?

We own the consequences of our actions, our votes. Yes, we as a country, for whatever reasons, voted for someone who very clearly telegraphed he would be doing exactly what he's been doing. FAFO, and we're not even close to the full spectrum of what the FO part implies.

We the people are responsible for the government we get.

Don't like the consequences? Make better voting choices next time.

If elections were held today, regardless of who the candidates were, the GOP candidates would receive roughly half the votes. Just like they always do. It's not like there's a regime in place totally at odds with the broader will of the people. It's only at odds with about half of the people.

It is supposed to be a "liberal democracy". "You" have killed millions to promote this idea and now trying to disown it.

It gets annoying how americans try and wash their hands of everything their government does. You live in a democracy. Freedom comes with responsibility. The average american voter is at least partially to blame.

C'mon, what a lame excuse. Well then, show us that democracy works and vote for a goverment which doesn't? If I follow your reasoning, you've just demonstrated that democracy is a failure, because the US government acts in the interests of arms manufacturers since a very long time, no matter if Dems or Reps are in power.

Our democracy is clearly disfunctional. I believe corporate money has played a big role to make it worse.

Throughput would still remain unchanged. Suppose that the "lunch rush" is from 11AM to 1PM, and imagine that it's uniform for the sake of simplicity. Then drivers would end up being fully utilized from 11:10AM to 1:10PM, instead of 11 to 1. The 10 minute lag at the end where drivers are still finishing the queue makes up for the 10 minute delay at the start.

Oh yeah that makes sense actually. Thanks for explaining.

That's because the unannounced firedrills don't involve setting the building on fire. A "drill" equivalent would be if we all pretended the internet is down sometimes, and in some cases that still might be impossible to do without negative consequences.

Fire drills do involve denying access, though. We wouldn't need to bomb the datacenters but we would need to make them inaccessible.

So living or dying proves right and wrong? So, if the Polish were right the Germans wouldn't have massacred millions of them? What a garbage position.

> Ok, if that's really your thinking then you need to lay out: here's an impossible-to-ignore thing we can do with this, and this is how, and this is why this wouldn't be possible without this thing.

There was a period of ~1000 years where you could also make this argument against some high-minded guy advocating for democracy.

It is both telling and very, very funny to confuse asking for specifics for making an argument against something.

You also have this quadchotomy in a department store, or in a number of other valuable businesses.

I believe you're misunderstanding what the OP means about "long-term" memory. From what I can tell, it's not actively modifying the weights of the underlying model, it just "remembers" things from a high number of tokens into the past of its context. The point is that this allows it to remember something it read ~200 pages ago in a very long context window, not that it can remember something from one session into another clean session.

This model has fast weights, which actually are modified during inference.

Marketplace for fast weights inbound

Signing something doesn't verify that it's real, it just verifies that you claimed that it was real, which everyone was already aware of. You can either hack a camera, or use an unhacked camera to take a picture of a fake picture.

Suppose that I care about trustworthy and reliably accurate news sources and am willing to pay. How can I distinguish which ones are trustworthy and reliable? No offense to the folks at 404 Media, but I've never met a single one of them, and I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't lie to me for money. You clearly have your own prejudices and biases about which media organizations are honorable and which are not, which you're wrapping up as if it's about a "truthfulness" that you couldn't possibly actually verify.

Would calling and saying, "Hey, the bridge is destroyed!" without an image not have also triggered a delay? I question the safety standards of the railway if they would just ignore such a call after an earthquake. Generative AI doesn't change the situation at all. An image shouldn't be treated as carrying more weight than a statement, but the statement without the image would be the same in this situation. This has really been an issue since the popularization of the telephone, which made it sufficiently easy to communicate a lie from far away that someone might choose to do so for fun.

Calling identifies one person by name/number, and makes that person liable for any damages from the hoax, similar to how calling in a fake bomb threat is a crime. Publicly posting a fake comment and waiting for the rail operator to react of their own volition removes liability from that individual. That's where the AI footage comes in: it makes it more likely for the hoax to be taken serious.

This in itself is not a big deal... but there very much scenarios that could mean life or death.

Take a fast moving wildfire with one of the paths of escape blocked. There may be other lines of escape but fake images of one of those open roads showing its blocked by fire could lead to traffic jams and eventual danger on the remaining routes of escape.