Eranziel @ Eranziel @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

116

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's hard to trust a firm that is explicitly being paid by the company they're investigating. I could be convinced that they are actually a neutral third party and that their investigation was unbiased if they had a track record of finding fault with their clients a significant portion of the time. (I haven't done the research to see if that's the case.)

However, you have to ask yourself - how many companies would choose to hire a firm which has that track record? Wouldn't you pick one more likely to side with you?

The way to restore credibility is to have an actually independent third party investigation. Firm chosen by the accuser, perhaps. Or maybe something like binding arbitration. Even better, a union that can fight for the employees on somewhat even footing with the company.

The fundamental difference is that the AI doesn't know anything. It isn't capable of understanding, it doesn't learn in the same sense that humans learn. A LLM is a (complex!) digital machine that guesses the next most likely word based on essentially statistics, nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn't know what it's saying, nor does it understand the subject matter, or what a human is, or what a hallucination is or why it has them. They are fundamentally incapable of even perceiving the problem, because they do not perceive anything aside from text in and text out.

It's more like, "I own 17 homes and it wasn't that hard to get that many. They must not be trying hard enough."

If an LLM had to say "I don't know" when it doesn't know, that's all it would be allowed to say! They literally don't know anything. They don't even know what knowing means. They are complex (and impressive, admittedly) text generators.

I kind of disagree with you, in that when I think about the standalone meanings of the words in each phrase, I think they do say the same thing.

The meaning of the words "You are welcome [to the help I gave you]" implies, to me, that there wasn't actually anything to offer thanks over. You're acknowledging their thanks, but telling them that they are welcome to take/use whatever it is you're talking about. [EDIT: normally when someone tells me I'm welcome to something, I feel less compelled to ask and thank in the future. "You're welcome to anything in the fridge", for example.]

It does not imply, to me, that I would appreciate them returning the favour. That might be implied meaning in the phrase, but it's definitely not what those words mean by themselves.

In any case, "You're welcome", "no problem", "no worries", etc... are all idioms that mean something different than what their individual words mean. The phrases as a whole carry a different meaning than the words themselves suggest.

Do you think every paper writer would comply? Do you think that the actually problematic writers, like those cutting so many corners that they directly paste ChatGPT results into their paper, would comply?

Best I can find in Canada is in BC. I think you could get longer distances in a few other provinces, but the issue is a lack of roads/destinations in the northern corners, haha.

No, close the lid because that's how you avoid coating everything in the room with a film of urine and feces. Open toilets are disgusting.

Yeah, this. I'm certain there do exist people in this world who have a chart like this. Probably they just happen to enough sense to not post the chart online, or are too obscure for theirs to become the meme.

I don't know about the regulatory side, but Boeing gutted their experienced engineering corps starting about 10 years ago. In the pursuit of profit of course. I think we're seeing the effects of that finally coming to the fore.

My understanding of the role of the regulatory agencies for stuff like this is that they can ground a model of plane if they believe there's a systemic issue. Like we saw with the MAX.

That sounds like a problem from using too small of a drive. Every torque curve I've seen for brushless DC or AC servos is constant torque from 0 to about 75% rated RPM, and then starts to drop off.

Well, that's why you use a proper servo drive. Yes, technically they oscillate at standstill, but it's so little it literally does not matter. Closed loop servo control is a solved problem unless you're trying to implement it yourself.

I don't know why you're getting down voted. You're correct, steppers are used due to cost.

I disagree with all your points. What kind of servos are you talking about?

BLDC and AC servos maintain full torque at stop too, and have about 2-3× the torque of a stepper of similar size.

The only way a stepper can rival a servo for precision is with a high degree of microstepping, which is far from guaranteed positioning with open loop control.

I haven't directly compared response time between steppers and servos, but I would be extremely surprised if there's a significant enough difference to worry about. Most servo-controlled machines are larger and so are designed to accelerate slower than a printer, if that's what you mean. This is intentional because inertia is a thing you have to worry about, not because the servo reacts to command changes slowly.

There are valid reasons steppers are used on printers, but it's not because they have superior performance.

Cost is the short version, yes.

I don't know what kind of servos everyone here is talking about that are less precise than open loop steppers. Low quality hobbyist stuff, I guess? Proper servo motors & drives are the standard for good reason for robotics, industrial CNC machines, and pretty much everything else that needs powerful motors with high precision. Much higher power density, higher RPM (good for increasing torque with a gearbox), equivalent or better precision, plus closed loop control is a huge capability and safety gain.

That said, good, industrial quality servo motors are 1) expensive and 2) aren't made in small enough sizes to be comparable to the steppers on most 3D printers. Even the smallest industrial servo + drive I've seen is about 5x as big as the steppers on a personal 3D printer and costs $800ish. Obviously, both are deal breakers for a personal 3D printer.

3D printers are a fairly ideal application for steppers. The moving parts are small and light, meaning you both don't need a large motor and the danger of slippage is lower. Plus, steppers are cheap.

NFTs do not solve the problem of proof of ownership. Nor can they. If someone steals it from you - whether by trickery, force, or any other means - it's just as lost to you as any other stolen thing, digital or physical. (Not to touch on the fact that NFTs to date have just been URLs to web hosted media, i.e. ridiculously non-unique and insecure.)

Also, your whole paragraph about theoretical NFT replacement for DRM is just describing a different kind of DRM.

Wasn't it almost a year ago that he announced this was his plan?

Agreed. Don't make a threat - just make the GDPR complaint. Inform the company if you want. How many times have you remembered to follow up on one of those threats to see if you should still make a complaint?

It's not infantilization. These bills are designed to prevent "one more hoop" design by the company to make it too annoying to unsubscribe. Your position assumes good faith behaviour by the company with the newsletter. That is absolutely not a given.

I don't disagree that the people with money who are funding this kind of development don't care about regulations or safety.

That said, the idea that they'll do it out on the open sea or in space are absolutely laughable. Those ideas pitched so far completely ignore all the obvious engineering problems. Not to mention that going to international waters to avoid regulations means that the navy of that country you're thumbing your nose at now has free reign on you.