My old mac was supposed to be donated to some place, but they had forgotten me to tell the iCloud lock is still on there. They wrote me on LinkedIn and as they were a good employer, I did unlock it
It's pretty common if you have IT and finance teams that are paying attention. Sure a lot of shops let them waste away on a shelf, but that's what it is, waste. If you have fungible inventory that isn't likely to get used soon it is just a mistake it let it sit around unutilized. If it is cash, it is easier to utilize on other projects.
Ours are on lease, but the leasing company will release some from time to time for auctions at $DAYJOB. I've won 2. Using one, son flipped the other one for a couple hundred dollar profit.
Idk if it's common anymore, but some companies rent equipment rather than purchase it. So they'd have to return everything back to the rental company, who is expecting normal wear and tear, not intentional "customization."
Something I often think about is how we can barely define what AGI, consciousness, etc are. We may be pretty sure that what we have currently is an illusion, but at which point is the illusion good enough that it no longer matters? Especially with regards to my first question.
It's hard to say it's not X when we can't really define X.
I would personally argue that it's a lot easier to say something definitely isn't x, with confidence, than to say it definitely is. I definitely don't know what the surface of jupiter looks like, but I can pretty confidently say it doesn't look like Kansas.
I think the better it gets, the easier it will be to spot the shortcomings, because the gap between what it can do well and what it can't will widen. Anything the technology is fundamentally incapable of ever achieving will be made obvious by the fact that it will simply continue to not achieve it. We may not be able to easily define the totality of what exactly it needs to have to count as AGI, but the further it progresses, the easier it will be to point out individual things it's definitely missing.
I'm not saying we can't build it, but what we have right now certainly is not it. Right now context is just a bunch of text. Surely the human mind's context resembles something more like a graph database. What if we could use a database for context?
There's plenty of people panicking, just not the ones in position to affect any change.
It's a fairly commonly-held belief that certain high up individuals want the protests to escalate so that they can point to them as examples of the lawlessness they've been warning about and/or declare martial law. That's just one reason protesters have been trying their utmost to not let things escalate. People are trying to do things "the right way" through legislation as well but that's extremely slow.
> They want to get established as the de facto standard and get a whole bunch of people on their platform so by the time they need to "get profitable" they have a captive audience, a leg-up on other labs. It's a tale as old as time, that's why ubers used to be cheaper than cost.
Some of that is seeking to kill competitors before they can get established. That's normal and has been around for generations, if not since trading was invented.
But most of what we've seen during the "enshitification age" has been to burn money until you achieve a critical mass of users. However, this only really applies to social platforms where the point of it is communicating with people you know. That's the lock-in. You convinced Grandma to join Bookface and now you feel bad leaving if she doesn't leave at the same time, and more importantly, who wants to join Google Square if nobody else uses it?
That's not going to work for AI platforms.
What I do see potentially working is one method that email platforms use to lock in users: having tons of data you can't export/migrate. If you spent lots of time training your AI by feeding it your data, that's going to make it harder to leave.
So far none of them have capitalized on this (probably due to various technical reasons) but I expect it to start eventually.
The lock-in of email platforms is the address. With IMAP you can extract the messages right away and migrate. Yet, you would still have to check the old mailbox for stray emails that you must tell to reach you on the new address. And continue doing so for years or risk missing some critical email.
Coincidentally, bringing your own address that can be migrates away is somewhere between impossible and expensive.
Disregarding the grandfathered free accounts, own domain is $7.20/user/month on gmail, €5/month on Proton. On microsoft that's business tier feature and AFAIK not supported at all on Yahoo.
There is an element of hypocrisy in all this because American intelligence agencies were previously caught intercepting Cisco-made routers on their way to customers
No there isn't! That's not hypocritical! Words mean things!
Country X1 is claiming that country X2 is allegedly doing bad thing Z. If it turns out that it is the country X2 that is actually doing Z, you would call it hypocritical, wouldn't you?
Like Russia talking about the importance of international law and sovereignty of Iran. Like Israel speaking how much against Holocaust/genocide they are.
Snd words do mean things and they don't discriminate. So all the "it's only bad when others do it, for us there is an exception" defence is invalid. It is indeed hypocritical.
> Isn't that an obligation when you own a trademark? That you sue people, or else you may lose the trademark?
It's not quite as cut and dry as you suggest. Besides, in which way was a trademark being violated? Last I knew merely talking about and referencing a celebrity by name was not a trademark violation.
Is it trademark, or IP. If someone made a list of Mickey Mouse jokes, Disney's law department will send them a letter too. Chuck Norris is a person/name but also a persona.
reply