> If you were to design an entire ATC system from scratch (pilot interfaces, sensors everywhere in the airport and planes etc) it can be automated.

Even then you'll probably run into the long-tail distribution issues, similar to self-driving cars. 99.9% of all situations are pretty standard, but once in a while something so abstruse happens that it's not pre-programmed and requires some creativity to solve.

> What you can probably do is create software which observes traffic and simulates it into the future and notifies the human ATCs about risks.

Fully agree. Some of the recent close calls really were "obvious" much earlier, meaning they were not caused by late course changes.

Is this some kind of calibration then? I'd expect that the probabilities automatically adjust during training, such that in "lock" mode, for example, syntax-breaking tokens have a very low probability and would not be picked even wich higher temperature.

I'm reasonably sure Russia would take you.

I rather doubt it, but - can you back that up by some examples at least?

Would using an actors face and voice as training data be fair use?

What it the model then creates a virtual actor that is very close to the real actor?

>What it the model then creates a virtual actor that is very close to the real actor?

"Likeness" is a separate concept from copyrights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

I wish I lived in the alternative timeline where open source folks didn't look a gift horse in the mouth and actually used these tools to copy left the shit out of software to the point where proprietary closed source software has no advantage.

But instead we've got people posting "honey pots" that an LLM will immediately detect and route around.

now companies will get AI to do clean room implementation of what ever they like, open source is dead

get one AI to generate the spec using the source code of X project and then have another AI implement it....

or the open source ecosystem will go through a renaissance as people rapidly build amazing open source software that takes weeks instead of years to develop

I bet we'd cure all cancers in a month if everyone whining about slop actually went and did something about it.

The data behind the app is pretty solid, but lightningmaps.org has a much better visualization (based on the same data).

I use them as cheap-man's VPN. A ssh server on a public IP but a non-obvious port brings you into the network, and port forwarding allows you to connect to relevant endpoints in your remote network via localhost:12345.

> My Weird Hill is that we should be building things with GPT-4.

Absolutely. I always advocate that our developers have to test on older / slower machines. That gives them direct (painful) feedback when things run slow. Optimizing whatever you build for an older "something" (LLM model, hardware) will make it excel on more modern somethings.

Putting sulfur into the right layers of the atmosphere seems to be the currently best viable options. It's not overly expensive, either. It acts fast and is reversible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...

Dumb question: would this also lower solar panel yields?

Thank you. This reading lowers my anxiety. I believe we'll rationally - and in a hurry - come down to this kind of solution. It makes solid sense.

I'm sure that are no adverse effects.

This reads like someone with the means to eat good food eating junk food and then putting themselves on weight loss drugs to counteract the effects. I'm sure temporarily it might work but I don't believe that the shocks that produce meaninful cooling effects are without consequence - in fact, I suspect they double the consequences by adding yet another factor to the destabilization.

I could be wrong, and it could a short term solution to stop the bleeding, but I have a deep suspicion of adding more things to the atmosphere given our history with the CO2 in question, tetrafluoroethane, etc.

Lookin at the wikipedia it does sound a lot like "chemtrails". They describe airplanes as being able to disseminate these aerosols and these days when I look up at the sky there is always a straight line of "cloud" forming behind airplanes.

The low prices of solar and batteries are a glimmer of hope. For many regions it's now the cheapest source of electricity.

You mean cutting into the profit/MONEY of these large corporations? How will they survive!?

They would never be the same. It's just that everything still works the same if you switch out every i with -i (and thus every -i with i).

There are ways to build C that result in:

1) Exactly one C

2) Exactly two isomorphic Cs

3) Infinitely many isomorphic Cs

It's not really the question of whether i and -i are the same or not. It's the question of whether this question arises at all and in which form.

The question is meaningless because isomorphic structures should be considered identical. A=A. Unless you happen to be studying the isomorphisms themselves in some broader context, in which case how the structures are identical matters. (For example, the fact that in any expression you can freely switch i with -i is a meaningful claim about how you might work with the complex numbers.)

Homotopy type theory was invented to address this notion of equivalence (eg, under isomorphism) being equivalent to identity; but there’s not a general consensus around the topic — and different formalisms address equivalence versus identity in varied ways.

PP meant automorphisms, which is what the OP article is about.