My salary literally doubled just working remote/hybrid for London companies around COVID. I much prefer the lifestyle now I work for a smaller company in Canterbury and get paid less for the role. Turns out all that extra travel and overtime ended up being materially worse for my quality of life. And my job is way more fun nowadays.
This is already done, there's hashed indexes of known CSAM and you can apply vector steering to the latent space to shift detections to trigger on CSAM material. You can also use two detectors for age estimation and a separate one for nudity and use them in combination.
I mean, none of the videos show it completing a task successfully as I see it!
1. Doesn't look like it's stirring well enough to prevent burning
2. Seems to just be picking up vertical cans and grabs the napkin unintentially, never see it pick up any of the more interesting shapes/orientations.
3. Doesn't shut the fridge door
4. Teleports to things in it's hand, never see it actually place something in the rack.
5. Not a fold in site, vague wafting of a shirt around
6. Poured a few grains of cereal, not sure it can tell if it's poured the right amount of anything. Doesn't look like a useful result there.
Honestly, it could probably close the fridge. Why they can't show it completing a task in any of their examples is probably not a good sign for the skills situation. It's clear the goal is crowdsourcing the software and providing a platform with no idea whether it can actually do any of these tasks reliably to be useful.
This was exactly as I was thinking tbh. And the radio silence from them on any reply I think makes this more likely. I don’t want to be a dick if someone’s making something cool, but just be honest about it.
I gather this is a vague snarky comment loosely implying that vegans don't get enough B12. If so, it's a profoundly ignorant point that shows you don't have any knowledge of a typical vegan diet nowadays.
Yep, B12 is a solved issue. It's pretty cheap to supplement.
I do want to mention that you do also have to look out to get enough of : Omega 3, Calcium, Iodine, Iron, Selenium, Protein.
Takes a bit of work at the start to adapt but it's very doable, and it's not like Omnivores don't have comparable deficiencies from not eating enough plants and fruit. Not to mention other problems that come with eating animal products...
I only supplement with Omega 3, Vitamin D, B12, Iodine (although sometimes I go for wakame). Have been on a plant-based diet for around 4 years now, feeling healthy.
I know people who only eat chicken and beef, I'm pretty sure they need iodine way than you do. I don't have the issue, the main animal I eat (besides eggs and cheese) is fish, but I would bet you are healthier than a large part of omnivores.
Algae oil is the source of fish oil. Eat want you want, but don't be mad some fellows fetch their nutrients from the raw source instead of multi-staged passage within various other animals.
> [EPA and DHA] are originally synthesized by microalgae at the base of the marine food chain, not by the fish. As microalgae move up the food chain, fish acquire the omega-3s and accumulate them in their tissues [note from me: along nasty substances]
We used to charge innocent men for room and board in prison after being released here in the UK not long ago. They only changed this in 2023 after uproar in a recent case of an innocent man being freed.
It's more a comment about the feature detection I think; all image, video and audio input contribute to the same weights/activations that can produce image, video and audio output.
This is short-sighted IMO, I bet money that once the dust settles with the current LLM-boom that Google will still be around and pioneering in AI across the board. They aren't locked in to Nvidia, they have world class research, they aren't bogged down with VC returns or upcoming IPOs.
I see that being about as likely as IBM doing the same.
I'm too young to have seen the arc of Xerox PARC first hand, so to me stuff like the innovators dilemma made sense, but didn't feel particularly visceral.
AI Studio (or whatever their internal name is) is the first time in my own lifetime witnessing how real deep it really cuts.
Google realizes GCP is too slow and overwrought to get mindshare vs nimble OpenAI and Ant, spins up a new product org as a work around, and that product org ends up moving obviously much faster than Vertex, but also with a sort of malaise (relative to the technology they're supposed to be selling) that makes it clear to me that Google actually cannot move like a startup anymore.
That might seem super obvious to most people, but I grew up with Google being the startup. I knew they grew up to be a mega cap, but I guess I always assumed the bones of a startup were still in there.
There's no bones. It actually feels like a mini-identity crisis for myself to realize there is no startup left in Google: what other invariants I assumed about people and organizations are just plain wrong?
I agree with you for the most part. However they have been raising a lot of cash, and to do so they took on a ton of debt.
It's a totally reasonable investment as long as they are within shooting distance of the market leaders, but the more they lag behind (i.e. the longer it takes for them to release their next model on par with industry leaders) the more hurt they're going to be in.
If they can't materialize returns off the tens of billions of dollars they just raised then it will come back to bite them hard.
Luckily they have a ton of options (such as selling compute) but it's still not a great look and the market is going to hammer them given the opportunity.
Strongly disagree. Google (and Apple) need only be near the frontier. Their incredible distribution and integration will propel them far beyond the next marginal billion dollar benchmarkmaxxing.
I'm saying that. But they're falling further behind day by day. Gemini 3.5 Pro is allegedly months behind. If they can't keep up they're going to be left in the dust.
Lol. The average American isn't ponying up $20/mo for the latest and greatest model. Barring major breakthroughs, being months ahead is a race to the bottom of who can burn more money to get 0.1% on a benchmark with no practical relevance.
It's a pretty bad look when all they do is shed researchers. Whether to other labs, or to people launching their own things. "I work at Google" doesn't have the ring it had 10-20 years ago either, something that OAI and especially Anthropic enjoy nowadays.
Deepmind is looking less and less like a place of prestige, and more and more like a smash-and-grab.
"If they did it right" is a bearing a lot of weight there. The window of "getting it right" has shrunk over the last 40 years and it's delusional to argue otherwise. People like myself are comparing themselves to their parents at the same age. My dad had me at my exact age now, had bought a house, could raise a family on his singular wage. That is non-existent now in my part of the country.
It's just a funny little thing but I love how in a world of "megapixel" and even "gigapixel" space images we have here a "multipixel" imaging of planets, due to achieving a resolution of several pixels.
Though the 25km resolution mentioned actually sounds far, far better than the very pixellated planet in the "artist’s depiction". I suppose it depends how small and far away the planet is.
This requires sending something to at least about 548 AU and then effect falls off from there but anything you send that far will be going at a velocity that would keep it going. You would be in effective range for some time but basically you'd need to keep sending satellites to that distance in order to keep using the technique. You'd also want to send them into different directions in order to image different parts of the sky.
Couldn't you do something like a Hohmann transfer orbit ? As I understand it, adjusting the orbits far out there isn't as demanding as one might think (you don't have to spend the same energy you took to get out there to get into an orbit. Of course, this also means you will not be able to stay in one place and continuously map the same area, but you can map all the space within a disc?
It takes decades however to finish Hohmann transfers that far out apparently.
Rabbithole: Some calculations that may be entirely wrong would suggest that a <10000lbs spacecraft might be held "in place" for 100 yrs with a small fission reactor and an indium-based FEEP drive with about 15lbs propellant.
If you circularize the orbit at 550 AU (which is costly but possible, at ~1km/s of delta-v), then you end up with an orbital period of >10000 years (to complete your whole-sky survey in one plane).
But first-- the price to get that circular orbit is steep, you end up imaging empty space for a lot of the time (no real way to "skip ahead") and your orbital speed vector makes you leave the observation cone for any interesting target pretty quickly.
In conclusion: You probably really want to stick with "one telescope probe per target system", and to give them one-shot orbits because those are cheap, reasonably fast and inside the observation cone (for your single target) for longer.
It’s basically imaging one exoplanet per satellite. Would be good to figure out a way to slow down at 500 AU. In order to maximize the time for observation.
It would be most likely a whole solar system. Consider that new horizons only had hours during its flyby to collect all the telemetry that it did. Imagine having 600 pixels of resolution for an exo planet for up to 15 years. Plus all the other telemetry you'll be collecting about the galactic space near us.
With a Jupiter/solar oberth boost we can at best do around 20 AU per year, so best case scenario it would take atleast 25 years to get there, which honestly isn’t bad at all. For comparison voyager does around 3.6 AU/year.
A series of permanent stations near the vicinity of the oberth burns at Jupiter and the sun could add a lot of Delta V by firing a laser at the probe and the probe could fire one back. Even more so if it was a series of laser boosters strategically placed around the solar system. The numbers start to get really crazy.
Nuclear-powered ion thrusters could solve this issue. They provide low acceleration for a long time consuming very little consumable. This would allow the telescope to stay at the right position for observation.
Earth is 12700 km in diameter, so such an image would be 688 pixels across.
Basically you won't be reading license plates but you'd see enough to identify evidence of very large scale construction, and with multiple images over time I bet you could draw even more conclusions.
I wonder about all the extraterrestrial AI swarms that have already imaged earth.
Surely it has happened. They must have all spotted our planet millions of years ago and must be watching us with a continuous high-resolution feed. They've seen our dinosaurs. Their interest will really be piqued when they finally see us invent electricity, though that might be some time in the future for them.
Perhaps even gravitational lensing is primitive to them. Perhaps they're able to break and manipulate physics and peer directly into our light cone, breaking the speed of light. Perhaps through direct wormholes they're already here - computronium in the very oxygen atoms that surround us. In rock silicates, in the air you breathe, in your hemes, in your brain. Calculating.
But perhaps we're the only intelligent species in the entire universe. That is also a possibility. Some big names in astrophysics, such as David Kipping, suggest strongly that we should not rule out that hypothesis. I find his suggestions haunting and beautiful at the same time. You need to watch his videos, and this is a good start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEmYU8Y_rI
And finally, it may be that we're all just a historical simulation. Or maybe that's ascribing too much importance to ourselves. Maybe we're just a slop simulation on some AI's plaything, existing for no reason at all. Background NPCs with self-importance, ephemeral existences. But procedural generation at scale isn't really all too different from the laws of the physical universe itself.
The scale of the universe fills me with awe. Every time I think about it, my worries about random algo-rage and clickbait fades away to nothing. It deeply contextualizes our short time here.
This comment encapsulates how poorly we humans are at accepting unknowns. For me, that explains a lot of our belief systems. The fact we can’t just take the unknown but instead have to fill in the blanks with what ifs. and create a narrative like we know anything about the unknown thing. It helps us feel like we understand it more. That’s literally how religions and a lot of other things get created, it’s a pattern, then the logical person sees the patterns and say it’s a simulation. A quite predictable filling of another blank.
I'd argue that it's this same pattern-seeking drive that undergirds science.
"Zeus sends the lightning, his wrath darkening the very sky," is an understandable model that connects "dark storm clouds" to a likely prediction of lightning.
That urge to explain the surprising, to find the pattern, leads directly to our understanding of the cosmos.
>But perhaps we're the only intelligent species in the entire universe. That is also a possibility. Some big names in astrophysics, such as David Kipping, suggest strongly that we should not rule out that hypothesis
They may be planted by alien AI to lull us into false sense of security.
As Lynn Margulis reminded us we are not the main show. Our individual intelligence is highly over rated. The brain itself is kludge upon kludge accumulating over thousands of years, to solve problems that keep changing with time and environmental changes. Its quite a piece of crap actually if you tabulate all the accumulated junk. We arent as interesting as we think we are.
Some of the tech and knowledge generated might be interesting. But compare it with to photosynthesis or butterfly metamorphosis or the fact that microbes can double their population in a few hours, all of which is happening without needing any human intelligence. So they may very well be watching but are more curious about a rose or a redwood tree than all the random and superficial activity the chimp brain produces.
Maybe visiting moon is overrated. We can't know, we have very narrow tube vision centered around our rather primitive lives.
Effectively immortal organisms may be more impressive. Or those surviving in anaerobis boiling water conditions. Or fixing radiation defects like its nothing. Or vacuum. Or...
Artifical solar capture systems exist. Synthetic biology also bridges that gap as well and the genetic basis is known and has been manipulated. Granted, coming up with more efficient photosynthesis is very hard, but I don't share your "we humans are stupid" opinion here at all whatsoever.
> or butterfly metamorphosis
Nothing fascinating here. It is just a genetic program. Viruses have similar programs too - yes, no metamorphosis, but take retroviruses and the syncytium. Mammals only reproduce thanks to retroviruses (not 100% correct, but look at this here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0707873105)
> or the fact that microbes can double their population in a few hours
Wow, we humans surely do not have cells that double. Oh wait ... nevermind. Humans consist of cells. Who would have thought...
Yes, microbes are much faster, but they don't have to coordinate as much as humans do in 3D, not even in a bacterial biofilm. And we have to double a lot more DNA than bacteria do, so of course they are faster.
> about a rose or a redwood tree than all the random and superficial activity the chimp brain produces
That comparison is weird. A rose is thinking as much as a chimp brain?
The human brain is special. Chimps are very clever too but humans have very solid abstract thinking. Animals have this too, to some extent (predator hunting prey, chimps have hunting strategies) but e. g. look at mathematics - animals don't waste their time coming up with higher order theorems.
It's expected that a human would associate life with intelligence, but it's also a bit of a contradiction because it does not seem very intelligent to do so given all we know about the history of life on our planet.
reply