They could have gone with a "visor" frame design that would have been more fashionable, but I think this is pretty impressive for demonstrating the bare minimum amount of plastic needed to house holographic transparent displays, internal/external tracking sensors, and a sound system.
What they claim these glasses can do is absolutely incredible (we won't really know because they are only being used internally for further development).
There's a place for this, if it's entertaining. Memes, comedy, maybe some more legitimate uses too. A lot of YouTube is some guy just sitting in front of a camera in the most boring perfectly curated home office. Throw in something visually interesting that enhances the subject matter and I may watch more.
This would ideally become standardized among web servers with an option to easily block various automated aggregators.
Regardless, all of us combined are a grain of rice compared to the real meat and potatoes AI trains on - social media, public image storage, copyrighted media, etc. All those sites with extensive privacy policies who are signing contracts to permit their content for training.
Without laws (and I'm not sure I support anything in this regard yet), I do not see AI progress slowing. Clearly inbreeding AI models has a similar effect as in nature. Fortunately there is enough original digital content out there that this does not need to happen.
If it doesn't offer value to us, we are unlikely to nurture it. Thus, it will not survive.
I want Ars content to be part of whatever training data is provided to the best models. How does that get done without appearing like they are being bought?
Even if their contract explicitly states that it is a data sharing agreement only and the products of the media organization (articles/investigations) are not grounds for breach or retaliation, it is assumed that there is now some impartiality in future reporting.
So, for all media companies, the options seem to be:
Is there a GPL or other license structure that permits data sharing for LLM training in a way that it does not get transformed into something evil?
I pay for Nebula and try to watch as much as I can there. The content is more "pleasant department store" and less "Mexican public market".
I do watch YouTube regularly when channel-surfing, but if I ever see an ad (which happens only on mobile devices), I close it immediately and do something else. It's not that I don't think I should be able to watch everything for $0, but YouTube ads are so jarring, random, irrelevant and just make me sick. They literally ruin whatever I was watching and make me sad to exist.
It can be exhausting to wade through the absolute meat market of click bait titles and thumbnails to find something that not only looks interesting but won't abuse me with infomercial-form audio/visuals.
YouTube enables and promotes the "content creators" who abuse human psychology to accumulate views, likes, subscriptions, etc. The best thing that could happen is they continue to be exposed as the drug dealer they are.
You would need to run the LLM on the system that has the GPU (your main PC). The front-end (typically a WebUI) could run in a docker container and make API calls to your LLM system. Unfortunately that requires the model to always be loaded in the VRAM on your main PC, severely reducing what you can do with that computer, GPU-wise.
Look at this in the same light as the 2nd amendment: bearing arms was more compatible with society when the "arms" were mechanically limited in their power/capability. Gun laws have matured to some degree since then, restricting or banning higher powered weaponry available today.
Maybe slander/defamation protections are not agile or comprehensive enough to curtail the proliferation of AI-generated material. It is certainly much easier to malign or impersonate someone now than ever before.
I really don't think software will ever be successfully restricted by the government, but the hardware that is behind it might end up with some form of firmware-based lockout technology that limits AI capabilities to approved models providing a certificate signed by the hardware maker (after vetting the submission for legally-mandated safety or anti-abuse features).
But the horse has already left the barn. Even the current level of generative AI technology is fully capable of fooling just about anyone, and will never be stopped without advancements in AI detection tools or some very aggressive changes to the law. Here come the historic GPU bans of the late 20's!
The features sounded good enough for me to click with intent to buy (as a firewall/router), but no SFP and no PCIe expansion slot means I can't use it with fiber. And with just one 10Gb port, the maximum it will be able to pass through is 2.5Gb/s (assuming the rest of the board is up to the task).
Looks like it would be nice for a small home server.
For what it's worth, since it sounds like you will be hardware shopping soon: I am using a 2.4GHz Intel Atom C2758 running pfSense and get 2Gb/s down and around 1.5Gb/s up through it. I am using an add-on Intel-based PCIe network adapter, so I'm not sure if that is helping with the CPU load. But it works well.
I just wanted to thank you for your reply. It was so well written and easily digested I feel like I got hours worth of research out of it. God bless Lemmy.
My 2 cents (more like $2 now that I wrote it) is that no car made in the past 20 years can be maintained to the degree older cars could, and electric cars will suffer from the same ephemeral lifespan as all modern autos do. Electric or not, makers will continue to abandon vehicle platforms regularly and aggressively in order to ensure no single component or technology becomes affordable or obtainable outside of a manufacturer-sponsored limited warranty plan. And they will lobby against our attempts to extend the service life of electric drivetrains in the name of safety or design secrecy.
What's the difference between one technology you don't understand (AI engine-assisted ) and another you don't understand (human-staffed radiology laboratory)?
Regardless of whether you (as a patient hopelessly unskilled in diagnosis of any condition) trust the method, you probably have some level of faith in the provider who has selected it. And, while they most likely will choose what is most beneficial to them (cost of providing accurate diagnoses vs. cost of providing less accurate diagnoses), hopefully regulatory oversight and public influence will force them to use whichever is most effective, AI or not.