My concern is based on the lack of oversight and transparency of an organization with so much potential power. We have a long history of attacks on civil liberties under the banners of child protection and counter-terrorism.

Who the ____ is upgrading their PC after 3 years? Is this article trying to normalize upgrading electronics years before it is necessary?

Ah - a Psilo-Cyborg

[deleted]

This comment is dripping with sarcasm. Dripping.

"With fungal computers, mycelium—the branching, web-like root structure of the fungus—acts as conductors as well as the electronic components of a computer. They can receive and send electric signals, as well as retain memory. "

This is new info to me. Maybe we should do a few more backups

Revert prices back to non over inflated pricing and gamers will start buying GPUs again. I'm still on the 1080 Ti holding out till the 4060/4060 Ti drops for anything close to making sense to buy just for games. Even the rumored $499 price point for the 4060 Ti is making me hesitant to pull the trigger and continue waiting it out.

Woof. I don't like the sound of that. Largely because I suspect this will make consoles more expensive for the consumer. As it stands, companies typically sell consoles at cost or at a loss with the long-term plan to make revenue selling games and services. If the development/deployment cycle is cut in half, companies will have less time per console to make that revenue model work, which leads me to think we'd see companies try to change that model to make the margins better. Then you're looking at a world where there's a new system out for each brand every few years and they're each more expensive than earlier consoles. Then again, maybe I'm way off base. Maybe companies would still take a hit on hardware sales.

Hypocrisy usa, saying about china

The real systems that have the shit that you don't want anyone to touch ever, are. There are even measures beyond that to ensure security. However, depending on the lab, they also have a number of programs that need to interact either with researchers not 'behind the fence' or with other branches of the .gov or even with the public. Those get hammered all the time.

i disagree with photos as a good example. the skyline in your example never changes is. and you and i can stand at the same spot and take the same photo with the same camera and it will turn out the same.

on the other hand this is not true for ai art. you and i can use the sample computer and provide the same prompts and we will get something different for the same prompt.

They want to cut down from the 8-10 year cycle down to only 3-4

So we now know it’s not a “threat actor” associated with the Chinese.

With good records.

Because it's beta, you are supposed to maintain attention and control as you would driving normally. Thus, there's no extra danger, issues are generally on the driver.

If the driver fell asleep, or didn't see a car, that happens all the time with human drivers. Beta FSD will save most of them from themselves, but it may miss a few.

I feel like this article could have been written a year ago. I also think no discussion of Web3 is complete without acknowledging how terrible the back half of 2022 was to blockchain in general and crypto/NFTs in particular. Before that calamity, Web3 already faced technical challenges relating to scalability, transaction speed and the danger of VCs dominating the space, essentially giving them the voting authority to dictate what happens. Also, it's odd to see any Web3 discussion without mention of DAOs and smart contracts. But anyway, on top of all that, you now have an environment in which investors are a bit less cavalier with the blockchain/crypto world. The collapse of FTX, Binance under investigation and governments around the world honing in on regulations are making the former gold rush seem like a trap. On top of that, you still have scam artists ready to take advantage of anyone who shows a combination of ignorance and enthusiasm in the space, so even if you move forward with the best of intentions there are plenty of people who are ready to poison the well. If Web3 is ever to be more than some sort of glorified MLM, the folks trying to make it need to acknowledge the problems (not just the technical ones) and address them.

Just because the anti-abuse safeguards are not detailed in the article doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

It doesn’t talk about the specific hash functions used for this thing either but those definitely exist and they are definitely using them.

Web3 is Going Just Great

...and is definitely not an enormous grift that's pouring lighter fluid on our already smoldering planet.

https://web3isgoinggreat.com

Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee wants us to ‘ignore’ Web3: ‘Web3 is not the web at all’

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/04/web-inventor-tim-berners-lee-wants-us-to-ignore-web3.html

Why is this a shock?

They need to monitor/improve the system.

>> A computer absolutely can not create original work.

> Why not?

> Or rather, if a computer can't, what is the reason that a human could instead?

It's a question of the word "original". Water makes beautiful patterns in the sand below it, wind creates intricate patterns on the water. But we don't usually use the phrase "original work" to talk about things like that. Its meaning is related to the concept of invention, something that takes a will, a desire, imagination, intentional work, skill, and a process that involves being conscious of the aesthetics of what's being produced. I think that some animals are capable of it too, to some extent. But things produced by inanimate forces just don't fit into the category by that name. It doesn't mean they're not beautiful, and they have been the inspiration for countless artworks. But they're not called original artworks in themselves. There are different words for that.

On the other hand, people use tools and media to make art, and an artist using a computer can certainly create original work, if it involves the elements mentioned above. Also, processes of chance have been extremely important in the art of the past century. Much of the "output" of John Cage's work for example, is based on randomness. And I don't think the US Copyright Office is a particularly good judge of that. They might refuse to register a copyright on the music created, when musicians played notes that were produced by fish in a tank with a musical staff painted on it. Nevertheless, that piece is considered a very important and original work in the history of avant-garde art and music.

One of the best examples is artist Harold Cohen's AARON, a software project started in 1972, that produces physical paintings, spanning over four decades. The artist himself doesn't claim that the sofware is "creative", though the paintings have been displayed in many important galleries, and the overall work is considered very significant and influential in the history of art and AI. In 1994, Cohen asked: "If what AARON is making is not art, what is it exactly, and in what ways, other than its origin, does it differ from the 'real thing?' If it is not thinking, what exactly is it doing?"[1]

It comes down to the nature of the work. Someone who writes "an astronaut riding a horse"... it's so low-effort that it's difficult to call it original art, even though it's become somewhat iconic. But I don't think at all that its impossible to use AI image generators in a process that does produce original, creative art works, or at least, in a way that the deep and thoughtful investigation of the questions, as in Cohen's work, is clearly the original work of an artist.

I found out my company, years ago, had a public facing web page that executed a MySQL query, on a primary server with no backup, sent in the url string. (?query=xxx)

[removed]

this ends 50+ years from now with those skynet self contained killbot flying things btw

Switch to? Weren't they already doing this?