This. It's not that the Firefox is ignoring your video auto-play settings, it's that it isn't video, courtesy of the industry's greed and lack of any respect for people.
That's not the point. The point is that even after you install Python on Windows using the official installer, and unless you put that early in the %PATH%, running 'python' on a powershell / Windows terminal will pop up the Windows Store. That's just how fucking stupid Windows is these days.
If you install Python using the official installer from python.org and check the "Add interpreter to PATH" box when installing, running `python` in shell will launch it.
So what? Why should the application talk over the Internet to begin with? And why isn't that functionality off by default under a settings option that clearly warns the user of the consequences? I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.
And the claims that this is good privacy/security are not at all obvious either. And who are those third-parties anyway? Did you verify each one of them?
So the first email was from a Protonmail account, and the second one was spoofed and obviously had incorrect headers. Are you saying Youtube doesn't check for these when processing take-down requests?
What incentive does Youtube have to get this right? They have a major disincentive to ever push back on the content cartels because even one false negative could put them on the hook for trillions of dollars worth of damages, even if it was due to sloppy work on the cartel's part. It is no skin off of Google's back if they take their cut of the revenue from the wrong person, it's all the same to them.
The only way to get Google to care would be for content creators to start abandoning the platform on mass, but they don't really have anywhere to go (sorry Vimeo). Even then Google views content creators as a dime a dozen, so to get the numbers you need to make them notice would be exceptional.
So what have you gained in the process, other than wasting significantly higher amounts of energy in the form of heat and other emissions? It is nothing like software engineering; clearly you speak out of ignorance.
And then you say you attach 0 credence whatever, but you give no reasons for why others should buy your points. You don't really seem to have much of a point, anyway.
My argument: the theoretical limitations of NNs (lack of modularity, symbolic reasoning, verifiability) cause no practical problems to usefulness - we can just analyze the code artifacts as we do with human programmers. Do you disagree?
Yes. These limitations are not theoretical at all. The author touches on compositionality --- how a problem/program be decomposed into smaller, orthogonal problems/programs, reasoned about and tested separately, and then abstracted away in an interface that hides the implementation details. This is the essence of programming and software engineering at large, whether you're programming in assembly, Java, or Haskell. To divide and conquer so that we can fit an isolated aspect of the program in brain cache so that we can reason about it. This is a fundamental limitation and will not change until the year 40,000 when we have Space Marines.
A neural network, conversely, is a big ball of mud. Impossible to reason about and to test except for whole-system, end-to-end testing, which is impossible to do exhaustively because of the size of the state space. It is, by design, unexplainable and untestable, and therefore unreliable. It's why you use globals in C only judiciously. (I am just rephrasing the article here, not saying anything new.)
And the evidence that it causes practical problems to usefulness is already out there; "hallucinations" are simply errors, just that corporate PR likes to pretend that it's a "feature" and not a bug. This is delusional. A society seeking digitalization should run away from this level of stupidity.
> I would call ‘LLM-functionalism’: the idea that a natural language description of the required functionality fed to an LLM, possibly with some prompt engineering, establishes a meaningful implementation of the functionality.
My boy. More people need common sense like this talked into them.
It should also be noted that those elements are dynamic and update in pseudo-real-time. In case my boy is still trying to make sense of them in the context of the article, lol.
