𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

Johnson’s position on Ukraine is one of the few things where he did in fact show some strong leadership. Couldn’t fault him for that.

He failed in a lot of other areas unfortunately.

I’m surprised to hear GIMP crashed on you, I don’t think I’ve ever had it crash on me.

Morality is a product of civilisation and community. It’s the ability of groups to decide on a single set of rules by which they would lime to be treated by, as breach of those rules can cause physical or emotional harm. And then there’s simple evolution, where certain “moral rules” allowed civilisations to survive and thrive better than others.

At no point is “god” required here.

LinEUx

Currencies going up in value tends to not be great for an economy, as people will save instead of spend. It stops being a currency and becomes somewhat of an asset. A slowly depreciating currency tends to foster the most economic growth.

Doesn’t higher interests mean more money is spent paying those interests, meaning less money is available to spend on other things which in turn reduces the monetary supply in circulation which curbs inflation?

Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?

Did you completely fail to read the part “except where authorized”? That bit of legalese is a blanket “you can’t use this software in a way we don’t want to”.

You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything

Ah, you just have zero clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.

Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.

Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.

But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It’s legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).

In legalese here, the “downloading” specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that’s not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.

except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service

Can you read?

No, that’s “Download to file” or “Download and save”. Just because some people like to refer to downloading and saving as just “downloading”, doesn’t mean that that magically now means that. You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.

The CS definition has never directly implied that downloading must also store the received data.

For example your second source says “downloaded over the internet” and since YouTube doesn’t allow you to download videos, YT videos would be omitted from that definition.

Everything on the internet is “downloaded” to your device, otherwise you can’t view it. It just means receiving data from a remote server.

Terrorism is more about the intent rather than the result. Did Israel intend to instill terror in the civilian population or did they genuinely try to target Hezbollah militants (and perhaps didn’t care much about any civilian casualties)?

Students were informed before the assignment, so he knew he shouldn’t have used it. This handbook is not some legal document or something so I don’t think the parents have a case. If anything the kid got away easy with a 65 instead of a 0.

The kid had already previously been informed that using AI tools like this is considered academic dishonesty. The rules had been made clear to him before the assignment.

He already got away eays with a 65/100 instead of a 0.

Nintendo has their own emulators for running these games on newer consoles.

Looks like the handbook does explicitly mention it:

Academic Integrity: Cheating and Plagiarism To cheat is to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage. In an academic setting, cheating consists of such acts as communicating with other student(s) by talking or writing during a test or quiz; unauthorized use of technology, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), during an assessment; or any other such action that invalidates the result of the assessment or other assignment. Plagiarism consists of the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author, including Artificial Intelligence, and the representation of such as one’s own work. Plagiarism and cheating in any form are considered disciplinary matters to be addressed by the school. A teacher apprehending one or more students cheating on any graded assignment, quiz or test will record a failing grade for that assignment for each student involved. The teacher will inform the parent(s) of the incident and assistant principal who will add the information to the student’s disciplinary file. The assistant principal may take further action if they deem it warranted. See Code of Discipline.

From https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/4900/HHS/4719901/Student_Handbook_Code_Discipline_2024_2025.pdf

Yes, but at least there they still use “Earth time”, just slowed down. For the moon it gets a little bit more complicated I guess.

Time moves at a different speed due to the moon’s reduced gravity. It’s not just the length of a day.

And according to new research, Columbus wasn’t Italian after all but a Spanish Jew. Though it hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet so it remains to be seen if it holds up to scrutiny.

What they didn’t prove, at least by my reading of this paper, is that achieving general intelligence itself is an NP-hard problem. It’s just that this particular method of inferential training, what they call “AI-by-Learning,” is an NP-hard computational problem.

This is exactly what they’ve proven. They found that if you can solve AI-by-Learning in polynomial time, you can also solve random-vs-chance (or whatever it was called) in a tractable time, which is a known NP-Hard problem. Ergo, the current learning techniques which are tractable will never result in AGI, and any technique that could must necessarily be considerably slower (otherwise you can use the exact same proof presented in the paper again).

They merely mentioned these methods to show that it doesn’t matter which method you pick. The explicit point is to show that it doesn’t matter if you use LLMs or RNNs or whatever; it will never be able to turn into a true AGI. It could be a good AI of course, but that G is pretty important here.

But it’s easy to just define general intelligence as something approximating what humans already do.

No, General Intelligence has a set definition that the paper’s authors stick with. It’s not as simple as “it’s a human-like intelligence” or something that merely approximates it.