Just yesterday I saw an article about a police station's AI body cam summarizer mistakenly claim that a police officer turned into a frog during a call. What actually happened was that the cartoon "princess and the frog" was playing in the background.

Sure, another model might have gotten it right, but I think the prediction was made less in the sense of "this will happen at least once" and more of "this will not be an uncommon capability".

When the quality is this low (or variable depending on model) I'm not too sure I'd qualify it as a larger issue than mere context size.

My point was not that those video to text models are good like they are used for example in that case, but more generally I was referring to that list of indicators. Like surely when analysing a movie it is alright if some things are misunderstood by it, especially as the amount of misunderstanding can be decreased a lot. That AI body camera surely is optimized on speed and inference cost. but if you give an agent 10 1s images along with the transcript of that period and the full prior transcript, and give it reasoning capabilities, it would take almost endlessy for that movie to process but the result surely will be much better than the body cameras. After all the indicator talks about "AI" in general so judge a model not optimized for capability but something else to measure on that indicator

> We want musicians to keep making music, and for fans to have confidence that the music they find on Bandcamp was created by humans.

It sounds like bandcamp is not the right place for what you want to do. There's plenty of ways to do what you're looking for though!

Agreed, I'm just pondering the general attitude around the space rather than bandcamp itself

When your annual temperature range is -40 to 40 C (or a bit over 100 F) central air HVAC is a life saver.

The profit in insurance is the volume, not the margin. Disrupting it will not dramatically change outcomes, and will require changes to regulation, not business policy.

Agreed. I'd also argue that there will always be the issue of adverse selection, which in any system that doesn't mandate that all individuals be covered for healthcare regardless of risk profile, will continue to raise costs regardless of whether or not margins are good or bad. That dream died with the individual mandate, and if the nation moves even further away from universal healthcare, we will only see costs rise and not fall as companies shoulder more and more of the relative risk.

It's also anti-inflammatory and an antioxidant, and you can get it either by eating citrus fruits or in pills as supplements.

There's a lot of things that aren't great for you at one quantity but are better or necessary at another.

As they say, the most dangerous thing in the ocean is the water.

I posted this not as a "gotcha AI!" but more as an amusing anecdote people here might appreciate.

For addicts, the drug is the last thing they cut back on when money is tight.

There's gotta be more to it than that. I've got a pair of dress shoes I wear maybe thee times a year at most, and I've had them for somewhere between ten and fifteen years, perhaps longer.

The soles (rubber because winter) are in perfect condition, and the leather isn't too bad either, though I've not really conditioned it enough and it's starting to show.

Both can be true. I have specifically heard that shoe glue needs to be repeatedly compressed to be maintained or it will disintegrate. Anecdotally as well, I had a pair of quality, lightly used, but old, hiking boots that had the sole completely separate after a day of heavy use. The runber sole completely detached from the leather shell inner shoe. The crazy thing was that BOTH boots failed within 20 minutes of each other.

Environmental factors can be very picky on what gets attacked and what doesn't.

In one of the oddest losses of a pair of shoes, I had fire ants break into my closet and eat the foam rubber out of one pair of extra lite running shoes. Turned the damned things to swiss cheese. Nothing else was messed with. They didn't want leather or rubber, just whatever those shoes were made of.

You may also want to consider Cosmic. PopOS has consistently been the distro that "just works" for me, though I don't use it much as I prefer to tinker more. That said, they're doing a lot of good work making Cosmic as a better replacement for the ton of gnome 3 hacks they had to do before.

Ostensibly, the Affordable Care Act was supposed to reduce the average family's premiums by $2,500 a year.

When that didn't happen, the story changed to that number being how much more premiums would have risen.

Insurance premiums have only gone up as far as I can remember, though there's a ton of variables at play here. Inflation is an obvious one, plus continual introduction of more and more costly treatments- biologic injections, cancer therapies and so forth. The unfortunate increase in obesity rates in my lifetime (along with all the health complications) has been a significant contributor as well.

It all adds up.

> Insurance premiums have only gone up as far as I can remember, though there's a ton of variables at play here.

An interesting thing about rising health costs is that it has happened at roughly similar rates in most first world countries for the last 50+ years.

For example in 1990 the UK, FR, and US were paying 2.0, 2.2, and 2.6 times their 1980 costs per capita. By 2000 that was 4.1, 4.1, and 4.2. By 2018 (the last year I had data for when I calculated this a few years ago) it was 10.6, 7.5, and 10.2.

Here's the 2000 to 2018 increase for those and some others: DE, FR, CA, IT, JP, UK, US were 2.1, 1.8, 2.0, 1.7, 2.6, 2.6, 2.3.

When politicians in the US talk about rising health care costs they usually put the blame on recent policies from opposing politicians. That so many first world countries with so many different health care systems all have seen similar increases for the last 50+ years suggests that it is due to something they all have in common and that government policy doesn't affect it much.

The individual mandate part of the ACA was the part designed to reduce premiums. You need healthy participants in any health insurance scheme to subsidize unhealthy people.

That was eliminated by a Republican bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

Yes, and that was years after the ACA took full effect and the rates did not decrease.

Most people get insurance through their employer, and most employer plans (at medium to large companies) are self funded by the company and merely administered by insurance companies.

That means the healthy participants had no effect on those plans whatsoever. Even at peak, the individual mandate had only cut the number of uninsured by half, and the effect on rates was negligible.

FWIW the state of california has its own individual mandate.

In 2010, it was already known the proportion of old to young was increasing, and the proportion of doctors was decreasing.

Prices were always going to increase.