Not even close. The paper is questioning LLMs ability to reason. The article talks about fundamental flaws of LLMs and how we might need different approaches to achieve reasoning. The benchmark is only used to prove the point. It is definitely not the headline.
For anyone stumbling onto this who actually wants to be educated, the science has practically unanimously agreed that climate change is mainly caused by human activity. No expert is unaware of the cycles that temporarily affect climate. They are well studied, modeled, and found to pale in comparison to human-made climate change. You can find comparisons between human and natural drivers, with sources from expert organizations and scientific studies, here and here. Funnily enough, the NOAA, which this commenter used as a source for El Niño and La Niña below, also hosts this article which literally starts by linking to a page that points out how climate change is mostly caused by humans.
Where are you searching for updates? Your motherboard manufacturer should release firmware updates that include the microcode patches.
No, there isn’t really any such alternate timeline. Good honest causes are not profitable enough to survive against the startup scams. Even if the non-profit side won internally, OpenAI would just be left behind, funding would go to its competitors, and OpenAI would shut down. Unless you mean a radically different alternate timeline where our economic system is fundamentally different.
You would still not be allowed to to redistribute it though. Others would not be able to build your code and distribute binaries either. Just the act of creating a fork is not enough to create a viable project.
How would an NFT help in any way? We’re not lacking the means to prove you bought the game. We’re lacking companies willing to sell you games and laws that prevent companies from saying “buy” when they mean “rent”. If we got to a place where torrenting software you’ve bought in the past is legal, we don’t need NFTs to accomplish it…
I’ve gamed on Linux for the past 5 years. If you use Steam, most stuff works out of the box after you enable a single setting. Now that the linux gaming community is growing it’s easier to find workarounds for the games that don’t work. The only games that are hopelessly broken right now are games with intrusive anti-cheats that don’t support Linux. You can head over to protondb.com and check compatibility status for your games, including workarounds when necessary.
If you don’t use Steam, then I’m not sure. Last time I played non-Steam games there was more troubleshooting and tweaking required but it’s been a couple of years and I don’t know the current state. It’s worth noting that Valve’s compatibility layer, Proton, is open-source and based on other open-source projects. There’s work currently being done to port the functionality outside of Steam. Hopefully, this will mean that in the future all launchers will behave similarly.
But that’s just the software side of things. Don’t forget to check how your hardware works on Linux as well.
It’s funny because you’re making the opposite point of the one you think you’re making. Cause if you put together the two pieces of information from your comment, the entire picture is:
Open ai makes a deal to pay media org for there content and makes it so they can link back to original article, with the money they make from stealing everybody else’s content
That’s already pretty bad, even without that points you neglected to mention, like how some of the content that is indirectly making money for Ars Technica is stolen from their competitors, or how Ars Technica basically became a worthless journalistic source for AI at a time where public opinion is not yet settled on its morality and precedent has not been set on its legality. How is this not “sold out” to you?
So help me out here, what am I missing?
You’re forgetting that not all outcomes are equal. You’re just comparing the probability of winning vs the probability of losing. But when you lose you lose much bigger. If you calculate the expected outcome you will find that it is negative by design. Intuitively, that means that if you do this strategy, the one time you will lose will cost you more than the money you made all the other times where you won.
I’ll give you a short example so that we can calculate the probabilities relatively easily. We make the following assumptions:
So how do we calculate the expected outcome? These outcomes are mutually exclusive, so if we can define the (expected gain * probability) of each one, we can sum them together. So let’s see what the outcomes are:
So the expected outcome for you is:
$1 * (18/37) + 2 * (19/37 * 18/37) + … = -$0.1328…
So you lose a bit more than $0.13 on average. Notice how the probabilities of winning $1 or $2 are much higher than the probability of losing $13, but the amount you lose is much bigger.
Others have mentioned betting limits as a reason you can’t do this. That’s wrong. There is no winning strategy. The casino always wins given enough bets. Betting limits just keep the short-term losses under control, making the business more predictable.
But we’re not at the point of debating whether users should replace all of their devices. If motherboards with a single USB-C are so common, we’re actually at a place where we’re expecting users to buy all their new peripherals to be USB-A as well.
Source? Why is it expensive?
You can argue that “open source” can mean other things that what the OSI defined it to mean, but the truth of the matter is that almost everyone thinks of the OSI or similar definition when they talk about “open source”. Insisting on using the term this way is deliberately misleading. Even your own links don’t support your argument.
A bit further down in the Wikipedia page is this:
Main article: Open-source software
Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use for any (including commercial) purpose, or modification from its original design.
And if you go to the main article, it is apparent that the OSI definition is treated as the de fact definition of open source. I’m not going to quote everything, but here are examples of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open-source_versus_source-available
And from Red Hat, literally the first sentence
Open source is a term that originally referred to open source software (OSS). Open source software is code that is designed to be publicly accessible—anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit.
…
And if we follow that link:
In actuality, neither free software nor open source software denote anything about cost—both kinds of software can be legally sold or given away.
But the Red Hat page is a bad source anyway because it is written like a short intro and not a formal definition of the concept. Taking a random sentence from it and arguing that it doesn’t mention distribution makes no sense.
Here is a more comprehensive page from Red Hat, that clearly states that they evaluate whether a license is open source based on OSI and the FSF definitions.
prageru is a known disinformation platform. That link is worthless.
The ongoing war in Gaza, is HAMAS against Israel.
And what about the Palestinian lands that are occupied and the Palestinians that were uprooted from there? What about the Palestinians that have been killed by Israel? The recent events might have been HAMAS, but historically this is a Palestine-Israel conflict. If you can’t be bothered to learn and understand the context, why comment at all?
They could make new updates to lemmy proprietary
Maybe not even that. Lemmy is released under the AGPL3. This means that modified versions of Lemmy have to also be released as free software under the AGPL3 or a compatible license. To release a derivative work under an incompatible license you would need to own the code or be given permission by each contributor to do so. For any contribution where you can’t make a deal with the author, you would have to rip it out of the codebase entirely. Note that this is true for lemmy devs as well. If there is no Contributor License Agreement that states otherwise, they cannot distribute the work of other contributors under an AGPL3-incompatible license.
It’s not about “accomplishing” something that couldn’t be done with a database. It’s about making these items tradeable on a platform that doesn’t belong to a single entity, which is often the original creator of the item you want to sell. As good as the Steam marketplace might be for some people, every single sale pays a tax to Valve, and the terms could change at any moment with no warning. The changes could be devastating for the value of your collectibles that you might have paid thousands of dollars for. This could not happen on any decentralized system. It could be something else that isn’t NFTs but it would absolutely have to be decentralized. Anything centralized that “accomplishes the same thing” doesn’t really accomplish the same thing.
It’s worth noting that this sort of market control would never be considered ok on any other market. Can you imagine a car manufacturer requiring every sale to go through them? Would you accept paying them a cut when you resell your car? Would you accept having to go through them even to transfer ownership of the car to a family member? If a car manufacturer tried to enforce such terms on a sale they would be called out for it and it would most likely be ruled to be unlawful. But nobody questions the implications of the same exact situation in a digital marketplace.
Can you be more specific? What are you running on the command line and what is the result? Normally, you would install Chrome via a package manager, and that package manager would be responsible for updating it.