nightsky

Ars Technica: “It’s a lemon”—OpenAI’s largest AI model ever arrives to mixed reviews

Yep, the clarification doesn't really clarify anything. If they're unable to write their terms of service in a way that a layperson in legal matters can understand the intended meaning, that's a problem. And it's impossible for me to know whether their "clarification" is true or not. Sorry, Mozilla, you've made too many bad decisions already in the recent years, I don't simply trust your word anymore. And, why didn't they clarify it in the terms of service text itself?

That they published the ToS like that and nobody vetoed it internally, that's a big problem too. I mean, did they expect people to not be shocked by what it says? Or did they expect nobody would read it?

Anyway, switching to LibreWolf on all machines now.

Sigh. Not long ago I switched from Vivaldi back to Firefox because it has better privacy-related add-ons. Since a while ago, on one machine as a test, I've been using LibreWolf, after I went down the rabbit hole of "how do I configure Firefox for privacy, including that it doesn't send stuff to Mozilla" and was appalled how difficult that is. Now with this latest bullshit from Mozilla... guess I'll switch everything over to LibreWolf now, or go back to Vivaldi...

Really hope they'll leave Thunderbird alone with such crap...

I often wish I could just give up on web browsers entirely, but unfortunately that's not practical.

What kind of total vampire would finance this .... oh, it's YC. Yeah, makes sense.

The AI guys are really playing with the exact same cheat every time, aren't they? Thanks to pivot-to-ai for continuing to shine a light on this... I hope the wider press eventually learns about it, too.

Yeah, that's also something I found oddly missing (i.e. that replacing crypto systems world wide, if it becomes necessary, will take a very long time).

Some people act as if “I can’t run it now therefore it’s garbage” which is just such a nonsense approach to any kind of theoretical work.

Agreed -- and I hope my parent post, where I said the presentation is interesting, was not interpreted as thinking that way. In a sibling post I pointed out the theme in there which I found insightful, but I certainly didn't want to imply that theoretical work, even when purely theoretical, is bad or worthless.

Before clicking the link I thought you were going for aluminium, i.e. a variation of

Wow this is some real science, they even have graphs.

Thank you!

Oh wow, thank you for taking the time! :)

Just one question:

None of the other assorted proposals (loop quantum gravity, asymptotic safety, …) got lucky like that.

Is this because the alternate proposals appeared unpromising, or have they simply not been explored enough yet?

Thanks for adding the extra context! As I said, I don't have the necessary level of knowledge in physics (and also in cryptography) to have an informed opinion on these matters, so this is helpful. (I've wanted to get deeper in both topics for a long time, but life and everything has so far not allowed for it.)

About your last paragraph, do you by chance have any interesting links on "criticism of the criticism of string theory"? I wonder, because I have heard the argument "string theory is non-falsifiable and weird, but it's pushed over competing theories by entrenched people" several times already over the years. Now I wonder, is that actually a serious position or just conspiracy/crank stuff?