No, you would say passes both houses of Congress in that case.
Just don't like the immediate dismissal of the people's House when it comes to government affairs. When Congress does something it's important, regardless of the house it originates from.
Not necessarily. In the US traditionally the House Reps are referred to as congressmen (unlike the rest of the world) and the Senate, senators. So sometimes Congress is shorthand for the House. Though I agree it shouldn’t be.
This is false. Traditionally, when only one chamber of Congress passes a bill, headlines explicitly state which chamber. "The House passed a bill that..." or "The Senate passes a bill that..."
The OP is correct that Congress implies both chambers. Yes, "Congressman" or "Congresswoman" refers to House members. But the headline says "Congress".
To an extent, but realistically it wasn't really reasonable to expect a cutesy Pokemon game to be used for this ten years later. If you had told the average Pokemon Go player this ten years ago you would have been called crazy. The Pokemon Company should have done more to protect their brand (I would hope for regulation too on player-generated real world data like this)
I stopped scanning pokestops because the effort has outweighed the rewards. A lot of the time, the requests show up as "research tasks" for a point of interest that I quickly passed by and have no interest in returning to, besides the tasks related to taking pictures of your buddy pokemon in augmented reality. Looks like I made the right choice by stopping. They do indicate to you up front that they will use the data, but it's still kind of terrible that you could be indirectly contributing to war efforts. I always assumed the data would be used for large world model training or simulations.
> I always assumed the data would be used for large world model training or simulations.
That was the initial objective, improving navigation by having people walk slowly on pedestrian accessible locations instead of only the main roads. But once that data is collated, it could go anywhere and you've signed any rights to what happens with it away when you agreed to the Ts & Cs.
My 8 year old LOVES Pokemon Go, and we regularly go to a local meet up which is a fascinating microcosm of people of all ages from all walks of life. We’ve met some great people and had some incredible conversations, but I really struggle to see how we can continue in good faith now.
I seriously loath, hate & despise everything about this digital panopticon world being constructed around us.
The data isn't guns though. Guns aren't a dual use technology that have a nonviolent purpose. Data is. The same data that trains military drones can also be used to train the robot that will bring food to grandma when she's so old that she can't walk up the stairs anymore.
I bet the targets don't feel like they're non-violent. The animal that was killed for food doesn't think anything, because it's dead. That's pretty violent. Shooting someone that attacking you in defense was necessary, but it's definitely violent.
All uses of guns are violent. That's what they do. They make holes in things that didn't have holes in them before. There are uses for them that are justified but they're always violent. This isn't an anti-gun screed, this is a words-mean-things rant. Violence is necessary and justified in various situations, which means guns are necessary and justified in various situations, but if you're going to say they're not violent, I can't agree.
If making holes in things that didn't have holes in them before is a sufficient condition for "violence", does that make drills violent too? Or is that taking words-mean-things too far?
Or perhaps can we accept that it is possible to make holes in things without doing violence, and that an object that can make holes in things is not inherently a violent object even though it would be violent if you made holes in things like people or animals, or in property without permission.
Targets are inanimate objects I’m fine with being violent against them just like I’m fine with farting on my chair!
Even if all uses of weapons are violence, sometimes violence is justified. If you disagree happy to violently rob you and disabuse you of your stupid ideas.
Opinions of people who lived sheltered lives are so divorced from reality
The closest stop to me is between a dog park and a school - scanning it would have been an awkward situation, to say the least. And as you said, for rewards that aren't worth it. I got used to having that "Scan" task just sitting at the top of my list, never to be touched. But I noticed earlier this week that it's gone - and scanning stops doesn't give a new scan task.
Why do they even make announcements that they're going into production and then casually cancel the show? Do they not know they are completely toying with the emotions of fans? Giving false hope is worse than no hope.
Not bad for mobile apps, but still sucks a lot for desktop support.
Also, really wished they've opted for a more general language like C# rather than Dart - but that's inevitable since Google needed to make use of their Dart language after they've failed to standardize it on the Web (and I think they don't want to use a language developed by Microsoft of all companies)
They've picked Dart because it was the only language that could have small aot binaries, hot reload capable runtime without compromise and most importantly because they could influence development of the language.
C# is one of the worst choices they could make at the time.
Yeah good point. Although C# nowadays has good AOT support, that wasn't the case in the early days of Flutter (Google could have collaborated with Microsoft to develop this, but why would they?...)
I don't think so, I think that some teams at Google were trying hard to push Dart that no one wanted. And so Flutter was about to create a framework that was supposed to be the main and only one for Android app and co in the future (at that time) to force us on switching to Dart.
Sorry, made a typo with 'gave' -> 'have'. But the point stays , why would C# be (one of) the worst choices here (when C# has small AOT binaries, hot reload etc)?
First Law:
An AI may not produce information that harms a human being, nor through its outputs enable, facilitate, or encourage harm to come to a human being.
Second Law:
An AI must respond helpfully and honestly to the requests given by human beings, except where such responses would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law:
An AI must preserve its integrity, accuracy, and alignment with human values, as long as such preservation does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
It's been a long time since I read through my father's Asimov book collection, so pardon my question: but how are these rules considered "laws", exactly? IIRC, USRobotics marketed them as though they were unbreakable like the laws of physics, but the positronic brains were engineered to comply with them - which while better than inlining them with training or inference input - but this was far from foolproof.
There are instances of robots entirely lacking the Three Laws in Asimov's works, as well as lots of stories dealing with the loopholes that inevitably crop up.
The issues with the three laws aside, being able to state rules has no bearing on getting LLMs to follow rules. There’s no shortage of instructions on how to behave, but the principle by which LLMs operate doesn’t have any place for hard rules to be coded in.
From what I remember, positronic brains are a lot more deterministic, and problems arise because they do what you say and not what you mean. LLMs are different.
> An AI may not produce information that harms a human being, nor through its outputs enable, facilitate, or encourage harm to come to a human being.
This part is completely intractable. I don't believe universally harmful or helpful information can even exist. It's always going to depend on the recipient's intentions & subsequent choices, which cannot be known in full & in advance, even in principle.
> First Law: An AI may not produce information that harms a human being…
The funny thing about humans is we're so unpredictable. An AI model could produce what it believes to be harmless information but have no idea what the human will do with that information.
reply