It's really not. It was a fun toy but had very little utility. It could generate plausible looking text that collapsed immediately upon any amount of inspection or even just attention. Code generation wasn't even a twinkle in Altman's eye scanning orbs at that point.
And the "too dangerous to release" capability was writing somewhat plausible news articles based on a headline or handwritten beginning of an article. In the same style as what you had written
Today we call that "advanced autocomplete", but at the time OpenAI managed to generate a lot of hype about how this would lead to an unstoppable flood of disinformation if they allowed the wrong people access to this dangerous tool. Even the original gpt3 was still behind waitlists with manual approval
I think you misunderstand the comment you replied to. They are saying the above comment was a rhetorical exaggeration of GPT-2's capabilities as a commentary on how low quality Samsung TV software is. They don't actually think GPT-2 was very capable. It is a figure of speech, not a literal statement.
I cringe at my old boss’s handiwork in Claude and power automate sometimes and go “you know I could just do that in a script and a cron job and it would be completely bullet proof, right?”
Then he just shoots back with, “yeah but now I don’t have to ask you.”
This is my kludge, there are many others like it but this one is mine.
Does the boss not understand that they could get Claude to write them a script and a crontab entry (so they don't have to ask you) -- and then run it forever (so they don't have to pay Anthropic, or risk temperature randomness)? Best of both worlds...
But I actually did appreciate the one time he handed me a Cisco config that was 90% perfect and took me all of 5 minutes to fix. Sometimes the three of us make a hell of a team.
Basically, the author (of the book) compares a data center outside Santiago to usage of water by humans, erroneously imputing that the average human uses only 200 cc of water per day.
> Plus, if you live in a red state, they've likely refused to take the subsidies
No. Individual states can refuse Medicaid expansion, but that does not have any bearing on the health insurance marketplace / premium tax credit ("subsidies"), which states cannot opt out of.
If you're all staring at the TV, you can at least share your thoughts on the thing you're all watching together. If you're all staring at your phones, your minds are in different places. It doesn't serve the same role at all.
The federal government spends $850 billion per year on the DoD. Why can't it find money in there to buy toiletries and spaghetti for the soldiers and families stationed overseas? Why should communities have to pitch in (beyond their contribution via taxes)?
> The money is mainly to pay for essentials and to provide bridge loans so families can pay basic living expenses while they wait for the government to reimburse them, which can take months, she said.
So it is clear that the DoD has money to do it. It just takes lots of bureaucracy to get the money out.
The CPB, the legal entity that the government actually funded (and which in turn supplied some of the funding for PBS/NPR and its stations) had its funding rescinded by Congress (under HR4 last year), and has since shuttered.
It's not clear how, even under that recent ruling, that rescission will be undone.
Reincorporate? You can just do things. Direct a human to take the required meatspace actions as the judiciary to recreate whatever legal entity previously existed, open a bank account, fund it, and start distributing funds.
If you need the Treasury to initiate the EFT and they refuse to, send law enforcement to effectuate the funds transfer.
In this case, you cannot simply force Congress to appropriate money to a reincorporated CPB -- unless you were to get a second ruling from a judge that the rescission was unconstitutional.
The Trump EO was deemed unconstitutional because he specifically called out that it didn't like the "left-wing propaganda" (his words) in PBS/NPR programming. Congress's rescission is ostensibly for budgetary reasons -- even if we all know in our heart that they were following Trump's orders.
What we can do is elect a Congress that will revive the CPB. Here's hoping.
I would be interested to know what capture hardware they're using. As someone who took on this project for my own family's videos, I ended up using the Canopus ADVC-110, which captures composite (or S-Video) NTSC (plus stereo audio) and generates DV, which you can then capture over FireWire.
It worked well for me since it didn't require any non-built-in drivers on macOS (though I hear Tahoe drops FireWire support entirely -- boo), and it therefore was easily interoperable with FFmpeg, VLC, and custom AVFoundation code I wrote.
Unfortunately, I don't think the ADVC-110 is made anymore, and my experiments with various USB Video Class devices (which would be similarly interoperable), mostly based on MacroSilicon chips like the MS210x, were utter failures in terms of quality.
Unfortunately devices like the VuPoint - while low cost and accessible - deliver impressively terrible results. It’s a composite to usb converter which will fail to handle delinterlacing and get the colors wrong.
The best bet for people who aren’t going to build a domesday duplicator (which decodes the VHS signal in software), is to stick to technology from the era. Such as later released VHS players which had FireWire out or could even burn a dvd.
Thanks for the info on the VuPoint. In general, I actually don't mind capture cards not handling deinterlacing, since (as long as I correctly understand the format it's spitting out) I can handle it myself with e.g. ffmpeg. Color problems are a dealbreaker though.
I've looked at going down the RF capture route but haven't dipped my feet in yet. Maybe one day.
I haven't contributed, but this is what first drew me to the page: the 1040 instructions [0] on pg.82 has "How Do You Make a Gift To Reduce Debt Held By the Public?" and I was intrigued enough to read the details, which contain the link in the OP.
That's not a distinction that actually exists in the real world. This makes me wonder what other made-up distinctions they are claiming in industries I'm less familiar with.
I've seen it. I personally think it is ill-conceived and I am not sure why any business would actually want to function that way, but it definitely exists. Of software developers and computer programmers combined, only around 5% are considered to be computer programmers, so it is already recognized in the data as something fairly unusual.
reply