I know you all are here getting ready for a circle jerk, however ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They monitor all goods and such coming and going from the country.
If there is a primary UI element on screen that the user can interact with and moving the mouse towards that causes a secondary, alternative, UI element to appear, the second element needs an active modifier key to bring it up. Tooltips and such are total trash and get in the way of usability. If you have something important then put it on the screen to begin with don't have it randomly jump in front of the user who is already mid action with something else.
These improvements are showing that we're producing plenty so that the cost is driven down and distributed to wider and wider portions of humanity.
But my personal observations of AI is that it's producing more and more of the same stuff and not moving the front forward much. The human innovation and invention seems to be lost.
That's not quite the case. Effort and focus by amazing groups, governments and individuals are the reasons for improvements, not just that producing more or costs being driven downwards.
Innovation with AI is happening as well, but it obviously will need more time. It's already being used to diagnose tumors and disease earlier in the process, which will improve outcomes for patients, but obviously it's going to take time to see the results of those efforts.
I think of AI (especially self hosted) as the most helpful computer assistant that can do things I otherwise wouldn't dedicate time to do. I have a massive media library that is a mess of naming conventions and want to clean it up. Writing specific scripts and processes for doing that is possible, but I don't want to invest the time. Or I can ask the local Qwen model to go through and do it for me with a single prompt, "Please rename these files in each folder following this specific format, and when needed access this local service to look up the additional information needed" and then extend that to when I dump new media in, it's automatically organized and renamed. Works pretty darn well and I spent a whopping 5 minutes getting it going, rather than the hours of writing scripts and doing it by hand.
Cost of RAM and SSD seems like a secondary challenge. Trying to piss up a waterfall is more in line with the reality that products that are first about design and second about capability face when entering the current workstation and laptop markets that have been iterated on for decades and haven't seen a dramatic new redesign ever.
The closest such advance in recent years didn't happen and instead turned into the macbook neo. Apple could have released an OS for the iphone pro max model of phones that allow them to boot Mac OS when attached to a docking station. And sold a laptop formfactor docking station.
> The closest such advance in recent years didn't happen and instead turned into the macbook neo. Apple could have released an OS for the iphone pro max model of phones that allow them to boot Mac OS when attached to a docking station. And sold a laptop formfactor docking station.
I find it more likely that Apple are working furiously the other way: to make Macbooks boot iOS.
Not real recent. Nullification like this goes far back. It just requires a certain level of bias across the jury pool. After which, some people or companies will be unable to be protected by criminal law.
> Nullification is a different thing and grand juries cannot do it.
It might not fit the textbook definition of jury nullification, but it would absolutely fit the spirit of the definition.
If the prosecution presents nearly irrefutable proof that the Ohio man destroyed the camera (Which from what I've heard is the case), but the grand jury declined to indict anyway because they're vehemently against Flock cameras and want to stick it to the government, then as far as I'm concerned, that's nullification.
It doesn’t fit the spirit, because it doesn’t have the legal qualities of nullification. In particular, the prosecutor can choose to empanel a new grand jury and seek a new indictment on the exact same charge.
That's a technical distinction over which the original jurors have no control. I think the scenario described in GP exactly meets the spirit of nullification.
The entire point is that they have no control! That’s what makes it not nullification.
Edit: to be clear, the essential quality of nullification is that it’s the product of a contradiction between two unassailable principles in our legal system. Without that contradiction, which does not exist in a grand jury context, a juror’s decision is not nullifying. It’s just a decision.
I get what you mean, but using a word with a very specific meaning in a legal context to mean something else that's similar and likewise in a legal context, but with a more vague definition, will just create confusion. This kind of confusion in a legal context can cause major problems for people when they're trying to understand the law as it applies to their case.
I don't think calling this nullification even adds any "spirit" meaning that isn't already present in "the grand jury declined to indict".
These two things can be similar, but the details matter here.
Why can't grand juries do it? I thought that it's when juries intentionally rule against what the law says, while saying otherwise, as a consequence of juries not being able to be penalized for their ruling. I don't seen any reason that the same can't happen with a grand jury.
A web search comes up with articles saying that it's more common with non-grand juries, but that's not the same as "cannot do it", while they also speak about a prosecutor's ability to re-indict, but that still doesn't guarantee them a charge.
Nullification is based on a contradiction in terms: juries cannot be punished for the judgments they render, and prosecutors may not re-try a case to obtain their preferred outcome (“double jeopardy”).
With a grand jury, the second term doesn’t apply: the grand jury’s decision doesn’t prevent a second indictment.
So in other words: grand juries can choose to render “faithless” decisions, but they can’t nullify a case in the sense that matters.
It may have to do with the state of accusations. Pre-grand jury there is no evidence of a crime. Once a grand jury rules with the prosecutor a crime has been defined.
Law & Order often takes from reality. The ham sandwich phrase is attributed to Solomon Wachter who was a judge on the New York court of Appeals and is anecdotally dated to the mid or late '80s. And then went widely into the culture and has shown up in novels, academic papers, and tv.
Technology isn’t going to be a moderator of a police state. We already have technologies that are used for oppression, exploitation, abuse, and so on. They’re just not being used this way by governments in the same way they are being used by criminals. Bitcoin is used to collect ransoms. Telegram/signal is used to plan conspiracies to commit crimes. GPS and location services are used to monitor trafficking victims. There are stories of cartels running their own cellular networks.
A lack of technology doesn’t restrict a police state, see East Germany in the ‘60s-‘80s. It does, however, create more opportunity for crimes. In Seattle there was a shooting at the bite of Seattle festival. They don’t have firm ideas about the identities of all the suspects. There would be a greater chance that they would know who they are looking for if there were more securities cameras deployed at large public festivals.
To prevent a police state you need public participation in governance and a population that lives in the real world and not fantasy lands created by a intentional misinterpretation of events.
The thing that is needed is a cloud storage API that is mandatory by law and is required to be honored by the OS. The OS vendors create a virtual cloud storage layer which has a backend that can be implemented by any cloud storage provider and then all the apps use these abstractions when loading, saving, and so on their data to the "cloud." Which can be anything from a third-party online service to a self-hosted solution. It should be implemented in all apps that support cloud-based content, music, books, movies, home environmental data, medical data, exercise history and the like. Silicon Valley has developed an arrogance, and they need to be reminded that they are subject to laws and regulations like all of us and that it could be much worse for them if they continue to be wankers.
there are already protocols for exchanging files between computers. The cloud is just someone else's pc.... administered by mostly incompetent buffoons (or forced to act like incompetent buffoons by their higher ups). A "cloud" protocol doesn't make sense. Since a "cloud" could be any of a ton of wildly unrelated things, there is only one sane standard protocol that could be shared. It's called IPv4 (or v6)
Not just some cloud protocol, but an abstraction layer at the OS for the apps to talk to so that the cloud storage back-end can be replaced with no knowledge, participation, or consideration from the applications that a user uses.
I take my shiny new phone, go to settings, then cloud provider where I specify Acme Cloud Bit and Bobs Inc. And now everything just works with Acme Cloud. I switch it to Globodisk Corporation and everything just continues working. Maybe the OS does a nice one and asks if I want to migrate all my storage from Acme Cloud to Globodisk and performs said migration. And the apps never know or care.
But it would need to be mandated by some large political entity as no tech company would do this and give up the lock in that they desperately want.
The question I have is that at some point X taxes are collected and the economy is growing at Y, then the policies change and now X-5 taxes are collected and the economy grows at Y. What was the function of the 5 under the first regime?
Slowing the growth of the country’s debt. Some would argue this gives flexibility to expand that debt during crises like wars, economic events, or pandemics; by “keeping powder dry” in terms of debt to GDP.
Are you thinking specifically of the US or you thinking of all the countries that were part of the data they reviewed? Also, how does leaving the wealth in the hands of citizens prevent it from being taxed in the future if needs be?
I’m thinking specifically of the US, but I don’t see why the same argument wouldn’t apply to most countries. There’s going to be differences when you get to weird economies like North Korea, but still.
Not taxing the citizens now gives you more room to tax them in the future. Or looking at it another way, cutting those currently implemented taxes can act as a stimulus for the economy, although one with poor measurability compared to other types of stimulus.
If you’re implying that the LLM companies are trying to train their models to make malicious tool calls so they can collect a few more tokens on the review, then I don’t know what to say. I guess threads like this are just a breeding ground for conspiracies now?
I think that solving a problem they have that has a side effect of generating more revenue is not lost on them. Particularly in the situation where the cost to improve the models goes vertical for minimal improvement in an asymptotic fashion. The decision to spend 6-7 figures regularly on training or bill every customer 3-4 figures per month isn't hard. While I don't think they will explicitly impair the models, they will certainly make choices that externalize the shortcomings of the model to their customers.
> I think that solving a problem they have that has a side effect of generating more revenue is not lost on them.
I think you’re overestimating the revenue generated by this. Having a separate LLM with a cached input prompt check commands is a trivial adder. The only reason it comes up is because they explain to users that it comes out of their plan. So someone on a $20/month plan is going to hit their limits marginally, though mostly negligibly, faster.
If you think they’re sitting in a conference room scheming about making their main models worse on purpose to collect a few extra cents, that’s just baseless conspiracy. They have more to gain or lose based on main model performance.
reply