Yeah, making life harder for as many people as possible tends to not have the effect of lowering crime. Investing in people is the way to go. But it takes more than 4 years to really show, sometimes it takes multiple generations before the positive effects are felt. But they are felt.
If they would have focussed on making a good place first, and then corrupting it with commercialism, they could have at least boiled a few of us frogs. But you can’t start with the commercialism foot forward and the quality foot behind and expect to make a place worth visiting.
Ok, so it’d be like if a wikipedia page about jesus said he was “our lord and saviour” instead of saying “some people consider him to be their lord and saviour”. A page for “Lord and saviour” as a phrase might still list jesus as one possible link.
Basically taking a first person position on it, instead of a third person position. Like grokipedia is writing from first person perspective that Hitler is the fuhrer, which when you consider that it is a significant departure from the wikipedia article, as only 0.01% of the content of grokipedia is, suggests it’s a hand crafted article written by someone that would refer to hitler personally as the leader, and not as someone some people used to call “the leader”.
There is a reason it was edited immediately as soon as people noticed, due to how bad it looked once pointed out.
Only his followers actually use(d) that title for him, everyone else when using that word about him, would say it’s the title his followers call(ed) him. Like how wikipedia is using it. Grok is just using it as his title, like a follower would.
You can think of it kind of like “dear leader” in north korea. Anyone calling him that outside of north korea is at least doing it sarcastically or using air quotes. This would be like if the news called him that with a sincere reverent tone.
To be fair, the wikipedia article says he was called that by the people that followed him. It never calls him that itself.
The grokipedia article, just calls him that.
A subtle, but very important, distinction.
Not to mention the other important part where grok buries any mention of the holocaust 13000 words in, where as it’s in the intro on wikipedia.
Keep in mind, by default, grokipedia started with a copy of what wikipedia said, so any changes are what was hand-edited on purpose.
The changes speak to what they wanted it to say and do differently.
I would imagine it’s the same scale, just a base 10 feet instead of 20 feet. So in yours you would see at 24 feet what the average person would see at 20 feet. Assuming there is a linear relation, and no circumstantial drop off.
Also, usually when people use the term “perfect” vision, they mean 20/20, is that the case for you too. Another term for that is average vision, with people that have better vision than that having “better than average” vision.
And you get a TV small enough that it doesn’t suit that purpose? Looks like 75 inch to 85 inch is what would suit that use case. Big, but still common enough.
Hmm, I suppose quality of TV might matter. Not to mention actually going through the settings and making sure it isn’t doing anything to process the signal. And also not streaming compressed crap to it. I do visit other peoples houses sometimes and definitely wouldn’t know they were using a 4k screen to watch what they are watching.
But I am assuming actually displaying 4k content to be part of the testing parameters.
So, a 55-inch TV, which is pretty much the smallest 4k TV you could get when they were new, has benefits over 1080p at a distance of 7.5 feet… how far away do people watch their TVs from? Am I weird?
And at the size of computer monitors, for the distance they are from your face, they would always have full benefit on this chart. And even working into 8k a decent amount.
And that’s only for people with typical vision, for people with above-average acuity, the benefits would start further away.
But yeah, for VR for sure, since having an 8k screen there would directly determine how far away a 4k flat screen can be properly re-created. If your headset is only 4k, a 4k flat screen in VR is only worth it when it takes up most of your field of view. That’s how I have mine set up, but I would imagine most people would prefer it to be half the size or twice the distance away, or a combination.
So 8k screens in VR will be very relevant for augmented reality, since performance costs there are pretty low anyway. And still convey benefits if you are running actual VR games at half the physical panel resolution due to performance demand being too high otherwise. You get some relatively free upscaling then. Won’t look as good as native 8k, but benefits a bit anyway.
There is also fixed and dynamic foveated rendering to think about, with an 8k screen, even running only 10% of it at that resolution and 20% at 4k, 30% at 1080p, and the remaining 40% at 540p, even with the overhead of so many foveation steps, you’ll get a notable reduction in performance cost. Fixed foveated would likely need to lean higher towards bigger percentages of higher res, but has the performance advantage of not having to move around at all from frame to frame. Can benefit from more pre-planning and optimization.
Overall is that even a deal over a used headset? Even a fully featured non-stripped down one? Like given what features his headset does have, it’s comparable to some pretty old headsets… and it likely does even those bare minimum features more poorly than an older used headset would. Not to mention comfort.
Like a 10 year old Rift CV1 has almost as much resolution at 90hz/fps instead of 60. And while it’s lenses would be relatively terrible now, they were pretty much the best option of their day, and likely still better than whatever this dude sourced. Not to mention their motion to photon was around 12 ms. The absolute best result this guy can hope for is 16.6ms, and that’s only if everything else in the pipeline is faster than the screens refresh rate… maybe it is… but I wouldn’t bet on it personally.
I’m sure it was a fun project though.
One thing, my current 4k TV/monitor does a pretty nice job upscaling 1080p. It, of course, doesn’t look as good as native 4k, but it looks considerably better than 1080p not upscaled. So even without native 8k content, there is some value in being able to upscale 4k content to 8k.
Yeah, very much looking forward to headsets with 8k panels. Most are up to 4k now, and it’s getting pretty good. If it stays at 4k for a bit, that would be fine. But it’s definitely an area where 8k will still be a very noticeable upgrade.
Even if the only short-term practical use for an 8k panel is how far away a 4k or 1080p screen would be clear to read in an augmented reality situation, that would be reason enough. But I personally will gladly lower quality settings to run VR games in 8k instead of 4k as well.
Probably something like this. Except not trained to be a rebellious troll. Part of her training set is his chat, hehe. Though despite this one being “evil” neuro, I think normal neurosama is more of a troll now, lol.
This is clipped segments from a live stream, so it jumps ahead at times. It has links to the source channel if you would prefer a full video. This one is probably already too long for most people though.
He does end up figuring out why she has so much trouble correctly inserting code in the right places later.
Edit: also, everytime she says “filtered”, it means whatever she was gonna say would have broken youtube or twitch rules. He has two filters, one on the text generated and one on the text to speech. If the text one catches it, it just outputs filtered instead, if the speech one catches it, she’ll still type something terrible, but only say roughly the first syllable or 2 before the speech is cut off.
Maybe it not being in legalese just means more people understand it? This is a pretty acceptable privacy policy relative to most of the other ones you will have already agreed to in your life.
Map data obtained and converted from other formats often ends up accidentally condensing labeling categories. One result is train tracks being categorized as generic roads instead of retaining their specific sub-heading. Another, unrelated to this, but common for people that play geo games is when forests and water areas end up being tagged as the wrong specific types.
There are a couple relatively safe places on 4 chan. But like 90% of the content makes for great “don’t do this if you want to get along with humans” training.
And the goal of training an AI is that it does want to get along with humans.
They are essentially a fun toy for most people, and an ok tool for people with the patience and training to get useful output from them. And they cost an insane amount of money to train and an insane amount of power to run.
Not to mention the other cost of training them, the human emotional cost. And the human cost of running them.
It just costs so much of a variety of things, for an output that has barely made anything better. Maybe they might get “better” in the future, and have to get through this stage to get there, but I’ve also seen a lot of people saying they appear to be starting to plateau… maybe a temporary plateau, but if so, how temporary? Could we just drop it for 10 years and start back up when they won’t be as inefficient? Maybe a law that they have to pay for everything they feed it, would effectively cause them to only emerge at a time when they are actually feasible.
Ignoring the content of the article for a second. Did they not proofread this at all? There are so many spelling, grammar, and sentence fragment mistakes. I would joke that it was written by AI, but it has too many mistakes for even that to be the case.
It might be about general knowledge of how colliders work, the sentence structure does it no favours, but half way through I realised it had to be intentional/beneficial due to knowing the only possible way a collider generates heat as a byproduct.
Where as someone that doesn’t know much about colliders might read that sentence and assume it’s like radiative heat or something.