Wouldn’t it make more sense to have removable batteries it could recharge and swap out on the fly?

The robot can spend 23 hours a day monitoring the parking lot from all angles

Do they get a mandated one-hour break or something?

The problem here is that if this is unreliable…

And the problem if it is reliable is that everyone becomes dependent on Google to literally define reality.

Those would be easy things to add, if you were trying to pass it off as real.

Regardless of how the image was generated, why is Google treating a random blogspam site as the authoritative version of a work of art over (say) Wikipedia?

According to the article:

As 404 Media has reported in January, Google is regularly surfacing AI-generated websites that game search engine optimization before the human-made websites they are trained on. “Our focus when ranking content is on the quality of the content, rather than how it was produced,” Google told 404 Media in a statement at the time.

Does that mean I can search for any famous image, take the largest existing version, upscale it by 1% and post it on my own site, and instantly be featured at the top of google searches?

Typing with long nails is the embodiment of “beauty is pain.”

The pain is real, but the beauty is subjective.

Couldn’t you theoretically do the same thing by tracking someone’s eye movements on video chat, if they look at their keyboard while typing?

I’m not familiar with every client, but on mine it only hides the domain for users on my own server. (Early email used to work exactly the same—you could send an email addressed to just a username with no tld and it would go to the user with that name on your own server by default.)

It should work the same as email: you can trust it’s them if the user account is hosted on their own site, or their employer’s, or if they link to it from another confirmed source.

They don’t mention any kind of control—I guess an appropriate one would be having a human interact with the participants one-on-one to see if they were as effective. (Although even if they were, the chatbots would likely be easier to implement in practice.)

There is no dark side of the moon Facebook, really—matter of fact it’s all dark.

This user’s name is displayed in Arabic, although the characters in the URL are Latin.

The most notorious is probably thalidomide, but there are plenty others on this list of withdrawn drugs that cause long-term side effects.

And that’s different from the commercial pharmaceutical industry how?

AFAIK, the only practical thing in the way of having a separate server that just hosts identity accounts for all types of fediverse content (while the content itself is hosted on other servers) is that your host server is responsible for presenting the interface through which you view the rest of the fediverse, and the interfaces are specialized for a particular content type. You could have a server running a variety of fediverse software (mastodon, lemmy, etc.) which automatically generates similar accounts for each user on each service, so users could sign up once and then switch interfaces; but I think the rest of the fediverse would still treat them as separate identities.

Not advocating for restoring the mammoth, but this is a dangerous line of argument.

With climate change and ongoing mass extinctions, many current species are or will soon be in the same situation that re-introduced mammoths would be—and you could use the same argument to say that trying to preserve them is cruel so we should kill off any current species facing environmental stress.

He’s a bit vague on the details, but I believe he’s using a laser:

To create a more realistic model of quantum dynamics, I employ a physical generator of random numbers based on coherent quantum-optical processes (the emission of coherent light can be associated with the effect of QT). Unlike a pseudo-random generator, a quantum generator produces truly random numbers.

As far as I can tell from quickly skimming the source paper… it sounds like he just replaced his pseudo-random number generator with a light sensor and thinks that makes the outcome “quantum” because photons are quantum.

I haven’t yet read Li’s editorial, but I’m generally more inclined to trust her take on these issues than Hinton and Bengio’s.

It’s the AI analogue of confirmation bias.