If aliens were to come here to Earth, they'd have such advanced technologies and capabilities compared to us that what our laws say is entirely moot. Our interactions will happen in whatever manner they desire.
Science fiction has given a very poor idea of what intelligent aliens would "really" be like. The odds of us encountering them at anywhere near parity to our level of development is microscopic, and if they're coming here then it's impossible. They'd be millions of years older than us.
I wonder if Team Trump is trying a strategy of sacrificing Trump's fuckage level in certain trials to try to reduce his fuckage in others, rather than spreading his fuckedness around evenly among them all.
Social media loves to have targets that "everyone agrees" are terrible and worthy of hating. Being part of a righteously angry mob is fun, gives a nice safe dopamine hit and lets you show you are part of the in-group.
Which isn't to say that Meta is innocent and Zuckerberg is a poor victim, of course. But it does mean that it's very easy to go overboard and believe false accusations that also fit with the narrative that Meta is terrible and awful and evil. There was a post a couple of weeks ago about Threads and the narrative in that conversation was that Meta was dedicated to eradicating open source (Embrace Extend Extinguish, think of XMPP!). I tried pointing out Meta's many contributions to open source but redirecting the mob was hopeless. Sure, the motives of these contributions are selfish. They want to crush their enemies. But in this case their enemies are OpenAI and Microsoft, and the weapon they're using is to fling open the walled gardens OpenAI depends on for the common man to enjoy.
It's a useful cautionary tale to keep in mind whenever there's a target that everyone around you hates because they're "obviously" the devil. Maybe they are, but it's likely more complicated than it seems.
One of the size classes they mention in the abstract is called "Weaver Pro" so my initial assumption would be that it's not. However, I find that with this sort of thing the most important secret is that something is possible. If Weaver works as advertised we will now know that it's possible fir a 34B model to get better-than-GPT4 performance, which means lots of people will be willing to devote resources to recreating it since they now know those resources won't be wasted.
And if Weaver is meant to be "commercial" I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bunch of censorship baked into it, so the eventual open-source version will have an advantage.
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard just ask. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me" Dumb fucks.
This exchange was from 2004, when Zuckerberg first launched Facebook from his college dorm. Facebook has never pretended to be anything other than what it is, people keep giving it their information, and then they make a surprised-Pikachu face and complain when Facebook does exactly what they've always done with it. What Facebook said they would do in the TOS that they agreed to.
A quick Googling of "phones without Facebook" gives lots of options.
Facebook (and one assumes Threads/Instagram) create ghost profiles of everyone mentioned or photographed in any posts on their platform if they can’t link that mined data to an actual account. So if your friends use the platform, then you do too, whether you know it or not.
This would be Facebook using your friends' data. It happens to be about you, but it's not yours.
I'm not saying people shouldn't care about privacy or take actions to protect it, but I think it's possible to go overboard in believing that nobody is allowed to know anything about you without your permission. There's a lot of public information that's available to anyone simply by being in public.
If you don't want your friends telling people about you, that's on you to tell your friends that. If your friends refuse to keep your existence secret then you'll have to decide whether that's more important to you than having friends.
“If there are things that emergency managers would do differently, or the public might do differently because a storm has 195 mph winds versus 160 mph winds, then maybe the categories should be changed,” he said. “Personally, I’m getting out of the way if it’s 165 mph winds or 195 mph winds.”
A valid issue, there's not much point to adding a category if there's nothing extra that needs to be done for it.
Still, though, I can imagine there being a few possible issues. If a hurricane is strong enough that it's going to literally level a city completely, like the 1900 Galveston hurricane that killed 8000 people and is the reason that Houston is the biggest city in Texas instead, then that might change some decisions when it comes to how to go about evacuating. I don't live anywhere that a hurricane would ever hit, but if I knew "my house is likely to be damaged or maybe collapse" versus "my house is going to be erased so thoroughly you'd need GPS to know where it once stood" then I'd put different stuff in my car before getting out of town.
Are you sure it's not just Baader-Meinhof phenomenon? Once you're primed to notice a particular thing you'll notice it more often, even if it was around equally much beforehand.
If your fingers are crossed when you check the "I Agree" box on their TOS then the terms are legally reversed and you control Meta's content rather than the other way around. It's in the Magna Carta.
Those adorable baby photos you posted for your friends and family? Sorry, they’re Meta’s now.
You literally gave them to Meta. You uploaded them to Meta after agreeing to Meta's terms of service, which essentially say "we can do what we want with the stuff you give us." Big Bad Meta isn't sneaking into your houses and stealing photos off of your nightstand, they're not "seizing" anything.
Also, Meta's AI "pipe dream" has so far been very successful. Their open-source libraries and LLaMA models have become industry standards. Their future work is likely to be productive.
Well yes, then. That's what I said. You'd be a programmer who had free underlings doing whatever grunt work you directed them to.
Or are you questioning my use of the term "team" for the AIs? LLMs are specialized in various ways, you'd likely want to have multiple ones that handle different tasks.
Until someone trains an AI on it, then everyone loses their minds.