Appreciated if someone can explain what is the problem and its context in simple terms 🙏
I understand the GNU "framework" is built on free, open source software. So I don't understand how one can "discover" that there were pieces of non-free software there... They were put there by mistake?
The current security philosophy almost seems to be: "In order to make it secure, make it difficult to use". This is why I propose to go a step further: "In order to make it secure, just don't make it". The safest account is the one that doesn't exist or that can't be accessed by anyone, including its owner.
Just wanted to applaud the fact that you've come here asking people, rather than asking some large language model.
We aren't supposed to accept that. We can simply not use their software. And as users that's the only power we have on devs. But it's a power that only works on devs who are interested in having many users.
Nobel prize in computer science. Looks like the Nobel Prize committee has forgotten what Physics is.
Well done! 💪🚀
This reminds me: what kind of Youtube replacement or quasi-replacement in the Fediverse? I've heard that Peertube may be difficult to maintain long term, which makes sense...
This is a fascinating phenomenon – but fully within current theory. And there's no "inversion of the arrow of time", despite what the sensationalistic, misleading title seems to imply. From the recent paper (my emphasis):
Our results, over a range of pulse durations and optical depths, are consistent with the recent theoretical prediction that the mean atomic excitation time caused by a transmitted photon (as measured via the time integral of the observed phase shift) equals the group delay experienced by the light.
The theoretical explanation is given in this paper:
We examine this problem using the weak-value formalism and show that the time a transmitted photon spends as an atomic excitation is equal to the group delay, which can take on positive or negative values.
It is essentially related to the difference between phase and group velocity of waves.
One more example of how nature – as we currently understand it – offers amazing, fascinating, unexpected phenomena. It doesn't need misleading sensationalism.
Fully agree.
It's worth posting the blog post you linked.
Personally I disagree on value of sex/nude scenes – but it's a subjective matter of course. Your final argument is absolutely fair and logical, and very general too. Extremely well put – I subscribe 110% to it!
Something that struck me about recent "large language models" is how their answers resemble those of students who work (on purpose or unawares) by memorization. I mean students who learn that specific patterns, appearing in questions, require particular answers. Such students can be extremely skilled at this. But they don't really understand why those answers are meaningful or correct. Their lack of understanding appears clearly upon closer examination and some digging. Exactly as it happens with large-language-model algorithms.
(This is one reason why I personally don't consider these algorithms to have any genuine "knowledge"; not yet at least. But that's not my point here.)
Now those algorithms manage to answer almost correctly many questions from exams; I speak for maths and sciences in my country (Norway) at the bachelor level; but I think the same can be said for other subjects and in most countries (correct me if I'm wrong). In my opinion this shows that our current education and graduation system is focusing on the wrong thing: not knowledge, but parroting. As Gibson asked in 1964:
Do we, in our schools and colleges, foster the spirit of inquiry, of skepticism, of adventurous thinking, of acquiring experience and reflecting on it? Or do we place a premium on docility, giving major recognition to the ability of the student to return verbatim in examinations that which he has been fed?
I think this is a huge problem that has been with us, and we have been aware of, for a long time. But the current AI development emphasizes it very strongly. And it urges us to ask (again) some questions. This is what I'd like to hear your opinions and points of view about:
Some institutions where I live are planning to use these AI algorithms to (help) generate or correct exams. I think this strategy completely misses the point: shouldn't we prepare exams that these AI cannot answer, which would mean they rely on understanding rather than language patterns?
If we keep teaching and grading students based on memorization, won't they become unemployed in the coming years? Their "knowledge" can be obtained more cheaply and quickly from AIs.
Assuming you agree at least partially on the theses above, then which education levels seem to be most affected?
Doesn't the current packing and compression of lots of subjects into a very short time, at bachelor levels, make the situation even worse?
These are personal (though starkly held) views of course. I respect others and would be happy to hear arguments and counter-arguments!
Cheers! Got a bit clearer now.