Skip to content

In a First, America Dropped 30,000-Pound Bunker-Busters—But Iran’s Concrete May Be Unbreakable, Scientists Say

Technology
113 71 1.0k
  • We're Not Innovating, We’re Just Forgetting Slower

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    297 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    577 Aufrufe
    P
    … /results. I'm....not quite understanding you reply. I think you're trying to add on "results" to my statement of "cost/effort", but I covered "results" with my first statement of "features or functionality". So if I understand your post properly, I think your addition is simply duplicative of what I already included. Have I misunderstood what you're trying to communicate?
  • 11 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    81 Aufrufe
    S
    TIL, thank you!
  • How can websites verify unique (IRL) identities?

    Technology technology
    6
    8 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    56 Aufrufe
    H
    Safe, yeah. Private, no. If you want to verify whether a user is a real person, you need very personally identifiable information. That’s not ever going to be private. The best you could do, in theory, is have a government service that takes that PII and gives the user a signed cryptographic certificate they can use to verify their identity. Most people would either lose their private key or have it stolen, so even that system would have problems. The closest to reality you could do right now is use Apple’s FaceID, and that’s anything but private. Pretty safe though. It’s super illegal and quite hard to steal someone’s face.
  • Right to Repair Gains Traction as John Deere Faces Trial

    Technology technology
    30
    1
    621 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    393 Aufrufe
    R
    Run the Jewels?
  • 92 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    60 Aufrufe
    H
    This is interesting to me as I like to say the llms are basically another abstraction of search. Initially it was links with no real weight that had to be gone through and then various algorithms weighted the return, then the results started giving a small blurb so one did not have to follow every link, and now your basically getting a report which should have references to the sources. I would like to see this looking at how folks engage with an llm. Basically my guess is if one treats the llm as a helper and collaborates to create the product that they will remember more than if they treat it as a servant and just instructs them to do it and takes the output as is.
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 202 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    141 Aufrufe
    A
    If you are taking business advice from ChatGPT that includes purchasing a ChatGPT subscription or can’t be bothered to look up how it works beforehand then your business is probably going to fail.
  • People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    29 Aufrufe
    tetragrade@leminal.spaceT
    I've been thinking about this for a bit. Gods aren't real, but they're really fictional. As an informational entity, they fulfil a similar social function to a chatbot: they are a nonphysical pseudoperson that can provide (para)socialization & advice. One difference is the hardware: gods are self-organising structure that arise from human social spheres, whereas LLMs are burned top-down into silicon. Another is that an LLM chatbot's advice is much more likely to be empirically useful... In a very real sense, LLMs have just automated divinity. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg on the social effects, and nobody's prepared for it. The models may of course aware of this, and be making the same calculations. Or, they will be.