https://lemmy.comfysnug.space/post/305019 saw itself being forced to change its rules despite content falling within their scope not having been posted at all.

f95zone disallows certain types of loli - see Rule 7. I think lewdcorner and allthefallen are somewhat less strict on this.

I still have genuinely no idea.

Swore myself off reddit after ther API fiasco and removal of .compact mode, but i’m not aware of other general-focus reddit-alternatives that don’t act worse than reddit in some aspect.

The domain expired for a few hours yesterday due to a now-solved account balance issue with the proxy used to register the domain on behalf of burggit staff.

You were seeing a parked domain page during that time.

The premise thrown to those economists is slightly different - that AI is more productive than a human at everything, but not necessarily cheaper, then sends their different interpretations, which i’ve ended up summarizing as:

Noah Smith: Compute will remain limited, so it’ll be directed at whatever is most profitable.
David Autor: AI can make the big-bucks jobs available to everyone, but they still need to Git Gud and figure out how to harness AI for them… Until everyone does. Pray “everyone” gets small enough by then so there will still be enough bucks left to live.
Daron Acemoğlu: Rest easy. AI won’t cover everyone’s jobs any time soon. Things will still suck when it does, though.
Ethan Mollick: AI won’t cover all jobs, but it’s about to cover all the “good” jobs. I don’t want to think what happens next.
Noah Smith on the earlier comments: Society will hopefully sort itself out and still leave humans “some” role. Relax.
Pascual Restrepo: You’ll still have “some” role, buuut it will become irrelevant anyway as AI will play a colossally larger role in the overall economy. Pray AI’s profits get distributed to everyone.

I think all of this misses the point completely. Compute can still be limited, but i think it’s more likely to happen through the supply-demand curve. Even if it remains expensive forever, there will likely be a point where the value of AI will equal its compute cost - once that is reached all AI jobs pay the same per compute time AI spends on them. Under the comparative advantage umbrella, the best-paying jobs for a human would turn out to be the jobs AI is the most inefficient at relative to the human regardless of whether they’re fullfilling to the human or not. but this still misses a much bigger problem.

Production needed land, labor, and starting from a certain technology level, capital. There used to be a social balance here in that everyone had their own labor and society always managed to figure out the price they’d sell their labor for - even if that price was different over time and over different societies, they’d still manage to sell it anyway because there was someone willing to buy it in the first place.

With AI, capital can now become labor instead of only amplifying production per labor. The industrial revolution was merely an inflection point where the amplifying factor of capital made labor without an amount of capital out of reach for most individuals uncompetitive. The ARA revolution is merely an inflection point where capital is making human labor uncompetitive.

On old societies, everyone had access to enough land to survive(or thrive) on their own labor with a capital multiplier small enough to be achievable by oneself - you could sell the labor to yourself and get a more enjoyable life in exchange. As societies got larger, the land available per individual got smaller, but capital could still allow for success. People with large amounts of land/capital figured out they could get more by lending their land/capital to others in exchange for labor, and society could figure out the exchange rate for which they were willing to trade those because labor was scarce.

ARA is bringing a post-scarcity economy, but the post-scarcity is coming to labor first, society has grown large enough that there’s not enough land for everyone to survive under their own labor without access to capital, and the people with land/capital now have enough that they don’t need to buy labor anymore. Worst of all, they’re now worse off by letting others labor with their resources for free, because the cost to keep them alive is now higher than the benefit their labor would bring to them. Society doesn’t like this, but what can it do about it?

tl;dr: George was almost right.

Energy recovery was already doable with traditional actuators through BEMF generation, so the only thing this has going for it is static torque.

The only way i’m seeing this doing things at a fraction of the cost is by enabling the use of a smaller motor and repeatedly winding each spring before doing a task requiring more effort. At that point, why not just use a linear motor and even more clutches to do that winding instead of having to move the entire arm?

https://www.pixiv.net/artworks/98201966

https://hiphish.github.io/blog/2023/10/18/grayjay-is-not-open-source/

Technically their implementation gives Fastly that power instead - but there’s nothing keeping both from being in bed with eachother anyway.

https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/108273024.

I assume this is seen by them as making their own purchases indirectly more expensive by more than the cost of moral guilt they’d feel by reporting the shoplifter.

Salt can disguise that. Or MSG. who cares.

Is there any reason you don’t like substack?

Can you judge if the model is being truthful or untruthful by looking at something like |states . honesty_control_vector|? Or dynamically chart mood through a conversation?

Can you chart per-layer truthfulness through the layers to see if the model is being glibly vs cleverly dishonest? With glibly = “decides to be dishonest early”, cleverly = “decides to be dishonest late”.

There’s been previous work developing a method to do this by reading an LLM’s internal state. The paper actually trains multiple classifiers on different LLMs, each reading the state of a different layer, but found different levels of accuracy at different layers depending on the LLM used and didn’t investigate further on why.

“Researchers in Malaysia have the impression that you pay to publish in open-access journals, which is associated with predatory journals. I do not want the quality of my work to be judged like that,” says Sivapragasam, who is now a master’s student in science communication at the University of the West of England in Bristol, UK.

even Nature’s parent company wants payment for open-access publishing.

Also open-materials used to be the norm until the Harvard mouse patent came in and others following put the whole thing into jeopardy.

@Orid@burggit.moe (baraag profile) previously asked this and was allowed to create a community during a time only one of the site admins was present. This community was purged when the other admin returned over it violating the “at-a-glance” policy in his opinion.

Where can i find more info about that? Most i could find is his computers having been seized for a while after a raid on his home.

That’s been added as a user preference in 0.19.

Can you check the current status of each community you’ve subscribed to? burggit removes content from communities whose instances have defederated but i haven’t seen this remove subscriptions from users (which would probably take significant additional effort to implement as doing it properly would require sending unsubscription requests to communities in newly defederated instances). I’m suspecting there’s an unhandled attempt to fetch content from one such community.