Cornell / Merlin / eBird publishes a global species frequency DB indexed by location and date (so, how likely is a species to appear in a place, on a day of the year)... In a project that I was working on, this helped a lot when used to influence the "raw" identification based on appearance alone.
See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor.
Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior ones.)
> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior
In the US. In the UK all the major unions I know don't require membership and fight for all employees in the industries they represent. E.g. as a software developer on a research project at a University I got all the negotiated benefits of the academic Union.
In Italy too. We have national contracts that are negotiated by unions for the whole indistry and are valid for all workers of the same industry, not only members.
They've also been proven to increase wages for people in the same industry who are not even in the union due to raising the floor in general for what good labor should cost
> See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor
If you're talking about AB 1751 (Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act) I think you have this exactly backwards.
> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon
As opposed to what? You and the GGP phrase this as a dichotomy, but I'm really curious what the other side of this is, because "not being in a union" doesn't erase your self interest or all the many many groups of people doing the same that don't feel like they're apparently being overly self interested by forming corporations, governments, non-profits, advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc
I mean given that effectively all other ISPs delivered nothing under these programs, it's a lot better for folks living in rural areas to get Starlink than nothing...
I'm sorry, but how does a business writer lead an article with garbage like this:
Amazon makes nearly a billion dollars in profit from search ads. Every week. Each week, they sell merchants and publishers enough search-distorting ads to capture a billion dollars in revenue.
Is it revenue or profit? They are not the same thing.
>> And a detection system that works 50%-90% of the time is better in a lot of cases than no automated detection at all. For example, universities need to make cheating with chatgpt risky for students.
I would say that's not necessarily the case unless there are zero false positives. In fact, your university situation is exactly where a detection system that works 50-90% of the time would be a nightmare if a meaningful share of the 10-50% errors were false positives.
And students could just verify their ai generated code doesnt have the mark.
Im very confused how this is even supposed to work at face value.
1) If the verification can be done by anyone, then anyone can bypass it.
2) If it can only be done by anthropic then the government or whomever has the special privilege (not everyone otherwise this is just #1) has to make a specific request
Is the point of the legislation to accurately classify text in general or to simply detect the true positives?
A watermarking system like this should have an incredibly low false positive rate. Orders of magnitude lower than the current crop of AI detector tools.
The lazy kids, yeah. But, it was always the lazy kids who are cheating the most with LLMs.
EDIT: Sorry, I misread your comment above. Yeah, hopefully orders of magnitude fewer kids than the number who are getting falsely accused of cheating with LLMs now.
Increasing the accuracy of these systems - both in terms of false positives and false negatives - seems like a good thing.
A proper watermarking system should be able to have an arbitrarily high accuracy - as many nines as you want. And it should be able to actually report the accuracy of its judgements.
If you're worried about kids being falsely accused of cheating using LLMs, you should be cheering on these developments.
Yea and that’s effectively “did not do it” when it comes to anything involving consequences.
It was obvious what the rhetorical point `nekusar was making. I’ll give you the pedantic point of being technically correct when looking at it from a gods eye view.
But for the purposes of doing something in protest like destroying flock cameras, the person doesn't want to be known as not doing it. They want people to know they did it, and why they did it. They want the cred. So saying they didn't do it is not helping the cause. Accepting they did it while returning not guilty is the desired outcome. Having juries return not guilty verdicts when someone very clearly did something is a good step in having stupid laws overturned. Even if they don't get removed, it shows police and prosecutors that that juries are not going to convict for this type of case. You'd have to be a Jeanine Pirro type to be willing to bring cases that are known losers. Rational prosecutors will not.
I think as a citizen and a 2x juror, that it is our responsibility first to determine if a law should be a law for all. Secondly, if the law passes scrutiny, ONLY then should we determine guilt or innocence.
I am highly disincentivised in seeing victimless crimes as crimes. Like drug usage and all that. Or destruction of horrific security appratus like Flock.
Simply put, the laws wrong. And that means 'Not Guilty' for anyone I would have to judge, even if they admitted it in open court.
(I'm also aware that jury nullification has also been used to find black lynching perpetrators to be not guilty of the same nullification. I said that I judge a law if it should be. Murder is pretty clearly not victimless, but extenuating circumstances like self defense are a thing. Lynching is terrible, and so is freeing lynching perpe-traitors.)
"Disturbing" to be able to economically provide cooking, cleaning, laundry, yard maintenance, snow shoveling, etc., for an elderly parent who lives alone (by her choice)? Why is that disturbing?
I did that with my grandmother after she had a stroke, and I would not have offload that to a robot, had one been available. It wasn't nice, but not everything in life has to be nice. What was important to me is that she felt loved and dignified. That's also why I combed her hair while waiting for the ambulance on the night of her stroke, even though she had peed herself on the floor. She always mentioned taking care of her hair should she ever have an emergency, so it was important for me to do this. Given how lousy having a stroke is, at least she got some comfort knowing I had been paying attention all the times she said that :)
I certainly don't judge you, but I wanted to offer my perspective.
Yes, I helped my friend deal with her bedridden granny who was very painful at a slightest movement, we did it together as gentle as we could.
Now I imagine a robot doing that with all its compassion and empathy (which, however close to zero, still seem to be greater than in many people at this point).
Your parents bathed you and changed your diapers, why can't you? Or did they hire a robot for that?
Getting shit done, details of implementation, elegance, humanity be damned - is all I see in AI crowd's attitude to life.
I have an uncle with Parkinson's disease. He has a daughter who's looking after him. But he is a tall man who weighs about 200 pounds and she is a petite woman. She literally doesn't have the strength to help him up again if he falls. She has to call emergency services.
I think this idealism needs to be tempered with a big dose of reality. Old people who need care aren't always able to book in time to be bathed. They soil themselves, trip and fall, get hungry and thirsty, need to get their book/glasses, need to check the mail, clean, get lost and confused, etc. This can be a full time job. How do you expect someone with a full time job to do this?
Dumping granny in a home and never visiting is bad. Being a full time carer and abandoning one's family and job is also bad.
> That's entirely service dependent, and the standard doesn't mandate "Service must not allow multiple passkeys"
Unfortunately, given the laziness, incompetence, and cost-consciousness of organizations like traditional financial institutions, telcos, governments, etc., many of them have & will end up with that implementation.
reply