The questions seem more focused around social media but I wish there were more safeguards to stop us (I’m talking as an EU citizen) from crashing and burning when the AI bubble pops.
Lmao you can’t be serious. This is something that can only be said if you can’t/won’t quantify social cost.
Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals. Repealing Glass—Steagall led to a global financial crisis. Gig economy businesses are exploiting workers by the thousands through self employment loopholes. We have insane monopolistic pricing and practices in the US in eg the telecom industry. Worst of all is that we’ve likely doomed the entire planet based on what is effectively too little environmental regulation.
>Deregulated gambling has had a horrible impact on individuals.
Yes, but gambling and all vices for that matter, are a centuries old issue that's well studied and well understood by everyone, while AI(hate that term in this case) LLMs are only an issue since November 2022, while most influential politicians are dumbass boomers who don't understand how a PC or the internet works let alone how LLMs work but yet are expected to make critical decisions on these topics.
So then it's safe to assume that the politicians will either fudge up the regulations due to sheer cluelessness, or they will just make decisions based on what their most influential corporate lobbyists will tell them. Either way it's bad.
ML and other automated systems are not new, and we know enough about automated systems to come up with regulations like "no, you should not use these in a certain set of specific circumstances" or "if you're unleashing this onto the world, you have to show that you understand what you're doing" etc.
Let's not be overly pedantic and overly Pius on petty semantics like that. It was clear from my original comment, the context of what I was talking about.
E.g. "if a decision cannot be explained by a human, it should bot be done by a machine" applies to them, too.
Basically, if you read the EU AI Act for example, it's hard to find anything you'd disagree with regardless of whether it's about ML, LLMs or three if statements in a trench coat.
Of course the industry is up in arms about it (just like GDPR)
Actually, around here they are giving a second chance to people whom over-regulation of the work market made too expensive to hire.
> insane monopolistic pricing and practices in the US in eg the telecom industry
It's actually regulations deterring competition in telecom who are responsible to those practices.
It goes like this: (well intended) regulation => raise price of doing business => fewer startups => less competition => incumbents enjoying practically monopoly => incumbents behaving like monopolistic a-holes.
> too little environmental regulation
In China. You forgot "in China". That is where most of that planet dooming is happening. Good luck promoting environmental regulation there.
> Actually, around here they are giving a second chance to people whom over-regulation of the work market made too expensive to hire.
Over-regulation being what, minimum wages? Coverage for basic social safety nets? ‘Cause that’s what we lost.
> It goes like this: (well intended) regulation => raise price of doing business => fewer startups => less competition => incumbents enjoying practically monopoly => incumbents behaving like monopolistic a-holes.
Bell system was broken up into seven different companies, thanks to regulation. It’s _lack_ of regulation that let telecoms merge together into behemoths. There _are_ small ISPs and telecoms in the US, they just can’t compete due to the size differential.
> In China. You forgot "in China". … Good luck promoting environmental regulation there.
Right, let’s jump for a Tu Quoque. China is destroying the planet so who cares what we do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m not blind to the existence of plain bad regulation, regulatory barriers and capture — but the overwhelming majority of these arguments have just been used to make regular people’s lives’ worse.
“Cheap housing isn’t being built in the UK because regulation makes it more expensive!” -> remove regulations -> there’s still no cheap housing but anything from 1990s onwards is now also badly built.
As a construction developer I’m sure I’d say there’s still too much regulation though. Gotta bump those margins.
One easy example is regulation making it hard to fire people. Then, naturally, firms will hire just as hard. The tradeoff is thus between a healthy, fast, dynamic and competitive job market with plenty of opportunities but with job insecurity and - fewer jobs, smaller salaries but the lazy unproductive bum slowing everybody down is now impossible to get rid of.
Yes, minimum wage is another. In effect it makes people whose work is worth less than the minimum wage - legally unemployable.
> Bell system
Bell system was a monopoly thanks to government regulation in the first place. The government actually passed a law that made illegal to connect a 3rd party telephone to Bell's network!
Yes, you need more regulation when your regulation f'd up a market. In free markets competition keeps market participants honest and even breaks monopolies. This is why one of the first regulation incumbents lobby for is meant to deter competition.
> Cheap housing isn’t being built in the UK
I do not live in the UK, but I am willing to bet everything that there is still a ton of regulation stopping building there. Last summer I visited London during a heat wave. We were sweating in our AirBnB, complained to the owner but he answered that he couldn't install an A/C because he wasn't allowed to change the building facade...
This feels so obvious and simple how is this not already a standard thing everywhere? Is it because the mantissa and point position don't both fit into a single register?
It already is; the author is trying to sell a solution to a problem that is known, well-understood and worked around, often with programming language types like `Money` or numerical calculation libraries. The "30 year compound interest inaccuracy" problem was solved 50+ years ago.
I'm really not sure what the angle of the author and their "organization" is, which was only created this month. The library and idea is cool and all, but it strongly implies the author didn't actually do any research before building a solution, one that probably (but I'm not qualified to say) has some issues they overlooked. See e.g. https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/master:src/math/big/flo... for a modern implementation of big accurate floating point numbers.
fake edit: reading that this was AI generated, my time and attention was wasted on this.
What is this "Ubuntu" and how can I use it? As a consumer, what does it mean to me that it's "Certified"? Certified in what?
Apple's ads show you the product, how you can use it and how you and the people around you feel after using it (like you took a sneaky shortcut and happy, respectively).
> 6. I'm not sure what tasks call for this kind of logical reasoning
Basically any tasks that fulfill legal or business requirements? Both companies and governments are rushing to put LLMs into anything they can to avoid paying people. It’s vital to ascertain that, say, a benefits application is assessed properly and the LLM doesn’t hallucinate its way into an incorrect decision.
I’d question if we really need LLMs in many of the places we’re sticking them at all (or if it’ll even be cheaper), but that’s more flawed human decision.
I think the best way to verify if a task could benefit from this is to try it by hand. What would a logical representation of legal requirements look like? If we can't model it by hand then we shouldn't expect an LLM to be able to do it either.
Probably 15 years ago I recall talking with someone at Columbia University who was working on an NLP project to help defendants understand the full implications of a plea deal. For instance if you plead guilty to a misdemeanor, what are all the implications elsewhere for someone who has that on their record. Or if you are on parole and plead guilty, the plea could have an effect on your parole.
The result might look a little more like search than logic. Like "rule 39.21 applies when (logical condition)". But then I can imagine growing the logical conditions... maybe you start with the most obvious formal definitions like crime severity, but then start to pull in other definitions as formal logical states as you see where that leads.
not true. if you make a repair, you're liable for it. if you do your job well, there's no reason that would mean more of a business risk than the OEM takes.
If, on the other hand, you do a rush job, then yes you're very much on the hook.
If anything, this makes repairs/reuse of devices more interesting to the consumer, since you know that some basic level of responsibility (read: liability) is taken care of.
Schools can use MDM profiles to track or restrict navigation.
Not only would you _not_ want to do it at this level or by setting cookies from a technical perspective, it wouldn’t work well as soon as a user goes to different app.
