For people who are interested in the question whether self-driving cars are the solution to commuting: an video essay of why self-driving cars are worse for a city than public transport: https://youtu.be/040ejWnFkj0?t=1684
As I had the same feeling as you, I subscribed to a quarterly news magazine called delayed gratification. I feel it's a good balance between keeping up-to-date, while not letting the news interfere with my daily life and emotions.
I think it is good that tax money is spend on having a well-educated population, this is something a democracy thrives on. It is a shame it is spend on loan forgiveness instead of making education cheaper so loans are not needed. Loan forgiveness should be paired with reform so future generations do not have this problem.
Sorry but that would be socialism. Instead here in God's America we allow lopsided unfree markets to produce adverse outcomes, and then spend multiple nation-states' GDPs worth every year to try to make those problems less bad, while erratically regulating subsets of the market in a vain attempt to get it to work better. We never take a holistic, long-term view of a problem, that's not the American way. We prefer chaotic labyrinthine expensive ineffective institutions with lots and lots of room for well-placed rich people to siphon yacht money out of the system.
At a minimum its an interesting gray area. While you can argue that government involvement in education is a socialist policy, it was well understood from the founding of our country that an educated populace is vital to a healthy democracy.
I was being sarcastic. The mere act of a government giving people money or otherwise interfering with contracts does not make that government "socialist" any more than walking to the grocery store makes you a triathlete. A hardcore socialist would probably scoff at the very concept of a "government relieving student debt" as something that shouldn't be possible or even make sense in a socialist society.
I would expect a socialist to be onboard with cancelling student debt though. They'd just want it to be part of the government taking over education more completely. Schooling wouldn't be something one pays for at all because the government would be responsible for providing it (and deciding who has access to it).
As I understand it, the GDPR is primarily concerned with user's privacy. You can't have an opt-out if you want to sell data about the user - like name, email, browsing history, and that kind of stuff.
Data created by the user - such as a youtube video, HN comment, or whatever you want to call Figma - is probably still a wild west. That's more about intellectual property than privacy. The ToS of pretty much every single platform has included a mandatory licensing clause for ages, giving them the rights to do pretty much everything they want to.
> That's more about intellectual property than privacy
It is very important point and anybody who is working on something more innovative than few mockups for their next SaaS app is fuming from their ears.
Just to illustrate let's consider a scenario where we have a team of scientists working for a long period of time on a data structure which they have visualised in their Figma project.
Now let's say they forgot to turn the toggle off. In an instant all of their intellectual property earned through years of blood, sweat and tears is integrated into Figma's LLM. Just like that and without any attribution!!!
Yes it is, to the extent consent rather than legitimate interest is the legal basis or even under legitimate interest if the data meets the GDPR definition of sensitive. I suspect legitimate interest as the legal basis here would be legally invalid in this case, but it would not at all surprise me if Figma were to try to away with that argument.
The GDPR is not actively enforced enough for compliance to be as widespread as it should be, especially by non-European companies but even by European companies. (I suspect that’s part of the reason lobbyists haven’t forced in more loopholes through legislative amendment; the EU and member-state politicians and regulators can look stronger on privacy than they are without actually severely impacting the corporate surveillance and advertising regimes.)
I doubt it would be. Housing any form of data subject to GDPR or NIS2 on Figma is already against the EU directives. So any data you house on Figma isn't going to be sensitive in terms of privacy. So the title is a little misleading in that it's not personal privacy data, but whatever work you've used Figma for. Which wouldn't be protected by EU directives as such, because if it was, you would be the one breaking the law.
I just want to point out that I think ChatGPT has seen more data than a single human being. With 45 TB of text data [1], it would cost a human around 70k years of continuous reading (assuming 1 GB is 200M words, and humans read 225 words per minute) to see all the training data.
Humans have a much richer IO system than any GPT model. Estimates say humans ingest about 75GB of data per day. That means ChatGPT has seen about 600 days worth of human data. Or about two years. So if it's smarter than a two year old, it's safe to say that it surpasses human ability.
The mistake is thinking that 'data' means only text.
After trying to understand and implement some algorithms in RASP [1, 2], my take-way was that certain functions need a certain amount of transformer layers to operate. Following this logic, it should become apparent that the functions learned by transformers can be spread over multiple heads. Repeating these functions might be very valuable for understanding and solving a problem, but current inference does not allow (a set of subsequent) heads to be repeated. This paper indeed seems a promising direction.
Of course. It would be bonkers not to. It just doesn't send a notification if the submission is flagged as spam and puts it in a separate folder. So I have the ability to look at every submission.
I put the system into effect on August 1st. There have not been any false positives. There was even a submission to the form that was clearly a B2B sales pitch, but because it was an actual person submitting the form and not an automated system it went into the "real" entries list (I think this is reasonable. Any business is going to have to field B2B sales solicitations)
I put together a few rows in a spreadsheet of legitimate submissions (with info blocked out): https://imgur.com/a/stxja1Z
Here's an example of one flagged as spam by Akismet that was submitted about an hour ago: https://imgur.com/a/PmN3t80
Overall, removing reCAPTCHA has increased the total amount of submissions to the form, but the amount of submissions actually being seen by a real person who then has to waste time reading it, identifying that it's spam and discarding it has dropped to 0.
