My dream for a parsing library / language is that it would be able to read, manipulate, and then re-serialize the data. I'm sure there are a ton of edge cases there, but the round trip would be so useful for fuzzing and program analysis.

From what I’ve read, kaitai does that now. For the longest time it could only parse, but I believe now it can generate/serialize.

Just to note though, source copyright extends to its compiled form. There is probably an analogue there for model weights.

Tell me about the companies that own the copyrights to their training data.

I was just going to fill it out how I would normally live Self Care > No Medication and immediately failed. That makes it feel like it has an agenda.

This article seems to have scoped AI as LLMs and totally missed the revolutionary application that is self driving cars. There will be a lot more applications outside of chat assistants.

The same idea applies to self-driving cars though, no? That is an industry where the "AI revolution" will enrich only the existing incumbents, and there is a huge bar to entry.

Self-driving cars are not going to create generational wealth through invention like microprocessors did.

The incentives are very poor in art, yet artists still create. I don't need people making video games for the incentives, I want the artists.

Interesting interpreting those as individualist. First can be read as a concern for family. Second is community and society. Third is also protection of community, you would be making a choice to intervene (an individual would leave). Fourth also is not the individual but again, family.

It's the right to have a capacity for individual action, which is expected to be exercised for the good of society - this has been an original premise for as long as Western Originalism has been a thing. Locke advocated for individual capacity for action, and believed people enter into social contracts to protect those rights for themselves and others. Rousseauist beliefs include the idea that liberties exist within the context of serving the common good.

Catastrophic AI risk is such a larp. The systems are not sentient. The risk will always be around the human driving the LLM, not the LLM itself. We already have laws governing human behavior, company behavior. If an entity violates a law using an LLM, it has nothing to do with the LLM.

Why do you think systems need to be sentient to be risky?

OP isn’t talking about systems at large, but specifically about LLMs and the pervasive idea that they will turn agi and go rogue. Pretty clear context given the thread and their comment.

I understood that from the context, but my question stands. I'm asking why OP thinks that sentience is necessary for risk in AI

My battery was going out on my 12 and I got an SE. It's a good experience. If you can get a thumb print one, I personally like it a lot more than face ID.

I wasn't sold on face ID until winter, and then the appeal become viscerally obvious.

This is the primary researcher behind the input hypothesis. [1]

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Krashen

The Input Hypothesis is controversial and has little evidence backing it up. Krashen is a bit like a fitness bro of the language learning world.

>Will at centre of legal battle over Shakespeare’s home unearthed after 150 years

What a confusing title. I read it as the home being unearthed after 150 years and that there was a will involved in an active dispute over this newly unearthed home.

There are more absurd interpretations, when you remember that his first name was William.

They had to dig up Ole William to get his side of the story

Preferably with a lawyer delivering a soliloquy while holding Shakespeare's skull in one hand.

I've noticed that UK news in general seems to like these sorts of headlines.

it's a brilliant title that's both technically correct and extremely misleading!

I thought it implied that there was an ongoing legal battle over the home and some original will that upsets those proceeds had been found underground. That'd be a very dramatic story!

Instead, there was a legal battle long in the past, and this was the will that was submitted to the government at the time, and kept in the archives. They make no mention of whether Shakespeare's original will survives. It's basically hey look at this document from the old archives that somebody thought was might be of historical value so they put it in a box but really doesn't change anything. It's just available online for the first time.

I think there would need to be some punctuation for that interpretation to make any sense.

It's a headline and it requires a skill to interpret.