It can’t be expressed in any integer-based notation without an infinite number of digits. Only when expressed in some bases which are themselves, irrational. It’s infinity either way.

The number which famously has an infinite number of digits? I thought we were arguing against the real-ness of infinity.

Also note: the method I was describing is one of the ways in which pi can be calculated.

It destroys meaningful operations it comes into contact with, and requires invisible and growing workarounds to maintain (e.g. “countably” infinite vs “uncountably” infinite) which smells of fantasy, philosophically speaking.

This isn’t always true. The convergent series comes to mind, where an infinite summation can be resolved to a finite number.

It’s quite useful, though, to understand a curve or arc as having infinite edges in order to calculate its area. The area of a triangle is easy to calculate. Splitting the arc into two triangles by adding a point in the middle of the arc makes it easy to calculate the area… And so on, splitting the arc into an infinite number of triangles with an infinite number of points along the arc makes the area calculable to an arbitrary precision.

I think the context matters. Just reading the paper and ask someone what their sign is so you can laugh at the horoscope section? Not really a huge deal. First date and using it as an ice breaker to get someone to talk about themselves? Mayyyyybe. Treating it with any actual level of seriousness is definitely a danger zone.

Is enshittification the scummiest thing you can think of? While other multinationals are paying for goon squads that kill people in other countries? While banks reorder daily transactions from largest to smallest so they can charge more overdraft fees, literally stealing from poor people? Even if enshittification is literally your biggest problem, you’d have to be living under a rock to think Google’s products are the most enshitified of all the garbage out there. You’ve never heard of anything from Meta? Amazon? Netflix? Microsoft?

I don’t know man. There’s a lot shittier business practices out there than paying to be the default search engine - which is laughably easy to change on any browser. Like marketplaces and services that pay to be exclusive sources of content and then use the fact that they’re the only source for most content to force extortionate deals on content creators and enshitify every aspect of the end user experience. Just to name one.

Thing is, normalizing stupidity and shitiness doesn’t help anything either. It actively makes things worse. I don’t know what the actual answer is to improving things with that kind of person though. I just think pretending that being a shitbag is acceptable behavior ain’t it.

Social media is where most of the blatantly false propaganda lives. Getting all of your news from it makes you more susceptible to propaganda, not less. These are people who have nothing to form an opinion with except for what the loudest people around them are complaining about most. And propagandists are the loudest ones, complaining about made up bullshit.

If every young person voted, the Republican party would collapse until it took a hard left turn. This is not a paradox.

Because even if it winds up being a bad study, it still evokes a deeper, more important “truth.”

I’m being sarcastic but that’s actually what’s going on here.

This is not the same thing at all. Trump instituted a zero tolerance policy, separating any family caught crossing illegally with the stated intent to dissuade families from making the trip.

Normally (including under Biden) the government separates children from suspected human traffickers or members of gangs that engage in trafficking. This is not to deter families. It’s to protect children - sending a child back to Mexico with a human trafficker is an abhorrent thing to do.

Stop carrying water for Trump.

He doesn’t need a plan. Half the voters don’t care if he has a plan. Plans are for Democrats.

Imagine thinking that’s a great way to convince people you’re the right person for the job…

Worse, imagine how stupid you’d have to be to actually be convinced that he’s the right person for the job. And then despair, because half the voters are that fucking stupid.

No mention of Gemini in their blog post on sge And their AI principles doc says

We acknowledge that large language models (LLMs) like those that power generative AI in Search have the potential to generate responses that seem to reflect opinions or emotions, since they have been trained on language that people use to reflect the human experience. We intentionally trained the models that power SGE to refrain from reflecting a persona. It is not designed to respond in the first person, for example, and we fine-tuned the model to provide objective, neutral responses that are corroborated with web results.

So a custom model.

When you use (read, view, listen to…) copyrighted material you’re subject to the licensing rules, no matter if it’s free (as in beer) or not.

You’ve got that backwards. Copyright protects the owner’s right to distribution. Reading, viewing, listening to a work is never copyright infringement. Which is to say that making it publicly available is the owner exercising their rights.

This means that quoting more than what’s considered fair use is a violation of the license, for instance. In practice a human would not be able to quote exactly a 1000 words document just on the first read but “AI” can, thus infringing one of the licensing clauses.

Only on very specific circumstances, with some particular coaxing, can you get an AI to do this with certain works that are widely quoted throughout its training data. There may be some very small scale copyright violations that occur here but it’s largely a technical hurdle that will be overcome before long (i.e. wholesale regurgitation isn’t an actual goal of AI technology).

Some licensing on copyrighted material is also explicitly forbidding to use the full content by automated systems (once they were web crawlers for search engines)

Again, copyright doesn’t govern how you’re allowed to view a work. robots.txt is not a legally enforceable license. At best, the website owner may be able to restrict access via computer access abuse laws, but not copyright. And it would be completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not AI can train on non-internet data sets like books, movies, etc.

It wasn’t Gemini, but the AI generated suggestions added to the top of Google search. But that AI was specifically trained to regurgitate and reference direct from websites, in an effort to minimize the amount of hallucinated answers.

Point is that accessing a website with an adblocker has never been considered a copyright violation.

a much stronger one would be to simply note all of the works with a Creative Commons “No Derivatives” license in the training data, since it is hard to argue that the model checkpoint isn’t derived from the training data.

Not really. First of all, creative commons strictly loosens the copyright restrictions on a work. The strongest license is actually no explicit license i.e. “All Rights Reserved.” No derivatives is already included under full, default, copyright.

Second, derivative has a pretty strict legal definition. It’s not enough to say that the derived work was created using a protected work, or even that the derived work couldn’t exist without the protected work. Some examples: create a word cloud of your favorite book, analyze the tone of news article to help you trade stocks, produce an image containing the most prominent color in every frame of a movie, or create a search index of the words found on all websites on the internet. All of that is absolutely allowed under even the strictest of copyright protections.

Statistical analysis of copyrighted materials, as in training AI, easily clears that same bar.

We’re not just doing this for the money.

We’re doing it for a shitload of money!