IMO the way to prevent such a scenario from happening is not by blocking Meta, but by inviting equally large competitors to join the fediverse. The described tactic can only work if you have close to a monopoly.

They’re right though. Top of the line software for certain domains (CAD, photoshop) just doesn’t exist for Linux. As much as I would want it to be.

It doesn’t read as if the author is generalizing all Europeans, it reads more as if he’s criticizing European policy. For what it’s worth in his book he’s very critical of Brexit as well.

Reality: most tech workers view it as fairly rated or slightly overrated according to the real data: https://www.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2023/11/2023-11-20-image-3.png

The paper I showed earlier disagrees

I think the use case is not people doing potato study but people that want to lose weight and need to know the amount of calories in the piece of cake that’s offered at the office cafeteria.

It needn’t be exact. A ballpark calorie/sugar that’s 90% accurate would be sufficient. There’s some research that suggests that’s possible: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.01082.pdf

No paywall: https://archive.ph/2023.11.12-212740/https://www.ft.com/content/8fde56b7-2515-441a-9472-30c8aedcc200
Tbh, the article doesn’t really talk about the headline. Just some history and talk about Elon musk and Twitter. Not a convincing argument about social media in general.

What are you talking about?

There’s still the European Parliament. But yeah I guess he gets the job…

Tbh the other side is also anecdotal. There’s no stats here.

While cool and impressive, this was not a dense forest. Not dense nor a forest, which is way less ordered

I also agree bing is nowadays often superior to Google, they’re also better than DDG imo.

While it’s a good thing that Google gets serious competition, I don’t know if Microsoft is the best company for that role. In both cases the incentives are not necessarily aligned with the customer.

I’d say that a measurement always trumps arguments. At least you know how accurate they are, this statement cannot follow from reason:

The JAMA study found that 12.5% of ChatGPT’s responses were “hallucinated,” and that the chatbot was most likely to present incorrect information when asked about localized treatment for advanced diseases or immunotherapy.

Tbh the problem is not due to chat gpt but because Google doesn’t rank search results by correctness but something that is related to popularity.

Before that self driving cars, before that “Big data”, before that 3D printing, before that internet TV, before that “cloud computing”, before that web 2.0, before that WAP maybe, internet in general?

Some of those things did turn out to be game changers, others not at all or not so much. It’s hard to predict the future.

I thought you wanted the job? Yet you intent to walk away from their offer?

The whole article and the report, nowhere is it explained how they get their numbers. What fuel prices or electricity prices have they used, what mileage for the cars. It’s kind of crucial info, and not really difficult to calculate either.

According to GPT-4 /w plugins: Based on the transcription of the video, here’s a summary:

The video features an interview with Yann LeCun, a renowned computer scientist known for his work in machine learning, computer vision, mobile robotics, and computational neuroscience. He is particularly well known for his work on optical character recognition and computer vision using convolutional neural networks (CNN), and is a founding father of convolutional nets. He is also one of the main creators of the DjVu image compression technology (together with Léon Bottou and Patrick Haffner). He co-developed the Lush programming language with Léon Bottou.

LeCun discusses the potential of AI and its implications for society. He believes that AI will bring about a new renaissance for humanity, amplifying everyone’s intelligence and making us more creative. He also discusses the risks associated with AI, but he emphasizes that these risks are not inevitable and do not necessarily lead to catastrophe. He argues against the idea of slowing down research or regulating AI before it has been fully developed, calling such attitudes “obscurantism.”

LeCun also talks about the state of AI research across different regions, including China, Europe, and the US. He notes that while each region has its strengths, they also face challenges that need to be addressed. For example, he mentions that China has a problem with bad science due to its incentive mechanisms, while Europe needs to provide more opportunities for people to go into science and research. In the US, he praises the country’s willingness to take risks and invest in ideas that seem a little crazy, but notes that the cost of education is a significant downside.

Towards the end of the video, LeCun discusses his future plans. He expresses excitement about the next steps in AI and the opportunity to understand intelligence better. He plans to continue working as long as he can contribute and has the means to do so.

Here’s a TL;DW:

• Yann LeCun, a pioneer in AI and machine learning, discusses the future of AI and its potential impact on society.
• He believes AI will amplify human intelligence and creativity, leading to a new renaissance for humanity.
• He acknowledges the risks of AI but argues against the idea that these risks are inevitable or will necessarily lead to catastrophe.
• He criticizes the idea of slowing down AI research or regulating it prematurely, calling such attitudes “obscurantism.”
• He discusses the state of AI research in different regions, noting the strengths and challenges of each.
• He expresses excitement about the future of AI and plans to continue contributing to the field as long as he can.

Tbh if you use Google (or YouTube) for the first time the cookie consent popup also takes up the entire screen