While I agree with your points and sentiment, the US civil rights laws (including the Civil Rights Act) are being continuously torn apart by billionaires and religious lunatics, so maybe not the best example.
Regardless, there are plenty of examples of laws succeeding in bettering the status quo going even as far back as Babylon.
If you’re in a position to dictate what shareholders get, you have no real reason to go public. Just keep it privately owned.
You go public to raise funds. The least reasonable thing to do to someone is ask them for money with a pinky promise that they might make a profit. Usually, those people are going to want something in return, like a say in how their money is spent.
From what I can see (and via translation), their published reasoning is, among other reasons, to protect national security and social interests.
So what are the risks that China is worried about to social interests? Well, we can find that in their AI Safety Governance Framework. Jumping specifically to the risks regarding anthropomorphic AIs (ethical risks):
(d) Addiction and dependence on anthropomorphic interaction
AI products based on anthropomorphic interaction foster users’ emotional dependence and influence their behavior, creating ethical risks.
They conveniently list some of their concerned outcomes from influencing their behavior, including disrupting conventional views on childbirth:
(e) Challenges to existing social order
The development and application of AI brings profound changes to production tools and relations, accelerating the restructuring of traditional industries, disrupting conventional views on employment, childbirth, and education, and challenging the established social order.
So did China ban these AIs over birth rates? It seems to have been part of the discussion, at the very least. Like all things in life, it requires more nuance than just “birth rates” to explain. However, the concerns stated by Matt Sheehan (who seems to be the source for the “birth rates” claim that the news outlets are going with) provides more nuance in his explanation as well:
“They don’t like the idea of a large portion of their population being in deep emotional relationships with chatbots that could take them out of the marriage market, that could have negative psychological impacts on them, that could lead to addiction, dependency and a whole bunch of other social ills,” said Matt Sheehan, who studies Chinese AI at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank.
All this to say that yes, the explanation that it’s about birth rates is an easy to consume concept for Western audiences.
But also, yes it’s a true concern that the Chinese government has specifically linked to anthropomorphic AIs.
So… China didn’t ban relationship bots? Or are you saying that the article is written in a way to condemn China’s decision to ban them?
What? You don’t normally call capitalists “Tankie”. That would be a weird insult for one, to say the least. Usually that term is reserved for a certain kind of pro-authoritarian “communist” (in quotes of course because I don’t believe it’s actual communism).
Anyway, not sure what any of this has to do with the post. What a weird comment thread…
My favorite quote from a post-surgery instruction packet (which required not smoking due to the location of the operation) was something along the lines of:
Can I start smoking again?
You have been nicotine-free for 10 weeks. You do not need to start smoking again.
If you’ve been locked out of your Twitter account and haven’t had access to it for a while because of that, then you’ve already gone that long without it. You don’t need to go back.
I also should correct myself - it’s not C(n, k), it’s P(n, k) (which is n! / (n-k)!). It’s been a minute since I took a statistics class lol.
In any case, it’s a lot of entropy with just a few words.
The entropy stems from the words, not characters. With random words and no repetition, you have C(n, k) combinationsP(n, k) permutations (or n^k with repetition), where n is your dictionary size and k is the number of words you chain together. These passwords tend to be longer, but not by much. A big enough dictionary can yield some pretty high entropy with only a few words.
I’ve had passwords as limiting as 16 characters for some services (unfortunately)…
16 characters is hardly enough for random characters unless you include Unicode (which rarely works for those same services that usually have shitty implementations).
Not much can be done there, sadly. You’re lucky if they even hash their passwords anyway - you’ll probably just get your password emailed to you if you click “forgot password” like it’s 2003.
I would never, ever want my users relying on their brain…
I never would either. People should just use a password manager. I was just mentioning an alternative that generated more memorable passphrases, but I wouldn’t advocate for it over random high-entropy strings saved in a password manager.
You can actually generate high entropy passphrases by chaining random words together. You just need to make sure the phrases are actually random and not just whatever comes to your head at the moment.
Naturally, words help with memorization, but memorizing hundreds of these is impractical at best, especially because long-term memory for infrequently used accounts is subject to “bit rot”.
They are free…
I’m not sure where you live, but here in the US, bats tend to be one of the biggest carriers of rabies alongside various animals that depend on the state. You can actually look up which animals are the primary carriers within a state (if you’re here). Outside of the US, naturally it varies from country to country, but you’d still be looking at bats, plus potentially stray dogs and such. It’ll take some effort, but you should eventually be able to find a carrier.
I would expect with the nondeterminism and the regular evolution of search results that reproducing the output would be difficult even if DDG didn’t make a patch already. It’s really easy to get these “AI overviews” to make up random shit, though. All you have to do is search normally about a topic that the model wasn’t trained on, and there’s a good chance it’s making shit up, even if only in part of the answer.
I have over 300 different passwords for different accounts. I’m not remembering that many passwords.
The Chinese splice 4090 dies onto boards with 48GB VRAM on them. I don’t think this will be very hard for them to circumvent.
Rather, I’m hoping whatever “safeguard” they implement accidentally causes some fuse to pop in all the unmodded chips, turning all but the Chinese “black market” ones into paper weights. Maybe that’s what it takes for this idiocy to end.
“We will only re-enable MCI when we are confident in the effectiveness of our data protection controls,” Kasriel said.
This should have been an obvious concern from the start. All the data would go to Meta, who are known to be the most reliable, privacy-focused data stewards in the world.
Not financial advice of course, but I don’t know anyone who has wanted to touch the bubble at all in the past year or so. I also don’t know anyone who could invest billions into the industry either, so maybe it’s just a matter of greed clouding judgement here (“maybe” is pulling a lot of weight because we all know the reason is greed).
The whole thing reeks of crypto scams, just on a higher scale. With companies investing in each other circularly to pump their valuations, we’re just waiting to see who tries to cash out first.
Powered by “clean coal” of course, right? It’d have been more effective than dumping a couple bottles of hydrogen peroxide into the pool at least since the emissions would prevent future algae growth more effectively.
I’ve used it as a sort of find and replace in the past, but by feeding it the output from Ripgrep to skip the “find” part. The “replace” was just unwrapping unnecessarily confusing “try” blocks and allowing errors to propagate to the appropriate handlers. This would have required a syntax-aware replacement tool (and some exist but I didn’t really feel like learning one for a one-off).
As a simple “find this text and replace with this other text” it makes no sense.
Your phone stores the code on the device and does facial recognition locally. Apps on your phone only receive that data if they explicitly request your camera and perform the recognition themselves.
This is vastly different than sending Google a video of your face that they save on their servers and use to analyze future selfie videos.
From the article:
It’s not just an encrypted passcode.