This is only a temporary “problem”. Eventually, ads will be incorporated into the story, and/or advertising companies will include clauses in their contracts. I imagine those clauses will DEMAND that websites include advertising in AI readers or not get paid for any ads they run.
Think enshittification. AI readers are only ad-free now in order to make them seem like an attractive option, and get people hooked on using them. I bet the numbers have already been calculated and decided on. Once AI readers are used by enough people, the ads will start.
Yup. Just like ads on cable TV, ads on streaming services, now ads in your AI. Even worse, the ads in AI may not even be labeled and just tweak your results slightly to favor certain products and the process hidden from the end user since hey, it’s so complicated even human programmers can’t figure out how to make the AI process transparent and verifiable.
Jeffrey, solemnly took a swig from his delicious cold Coca Cola. “Damn” He thought, smirking. “That tastes great, I should buy it more often.” He then drew his sword and charged the Viking shield wall yelling “This is for the Cola!”
Something to think about, how much of the videos you watch have a transparent background? None. Unless it’s content explicitly has been made for transparent tvs. It’s just a gimmick and one that’s like 3d tvs, where the quality of the picture suffers for a mildly interesting experience
I wouldn’t expect this to take off in homes, but for digital signage it could be very useful. Its still a gimmick, but an eye catching one, which is useful when advertising.
Also potentially useful in HUD (heads-up display) tech, like in planes and cars. Currently they’re projected onto treated glass but this could yield better contrast?
No super obvious “mainstream” applications that I can think of, but markets find a way…
Eventually it will be thin enough to have multilayered screens which will add additional depth to images which will create a 3D display. Similar to Looking Glass tech. Parallax will be a feature, not an issue for multiple perspectives as with typical glasses free 3D. The effect will be like looking through a window as they stack multiple 4k or greater resolution screens to provide depth/volume.
For automotive use they can put a layer of display on the windscreen to provide an overlay that can be used for AR navigation, displaying road warnings like speed limits, low-light vision enhancements, oncomming headlight dimming, among other capabilities. A layer of per-pixel dimming zones will enhance contrast and address the issue of wash-out without obstructing view.
For a phone with front-facing stereo cameras the display will allow for 3D video calls. I expect there to be phones released that have a see-through display, mostly gimmick early stuff that are basically nothing but an empty bezel ring.
The most immediate and apparent use case is a flex on the poors where your TV just “disappears” when you don’t want the looming presence of the nightmare/fantasy rectangle obstructing your view of the accent wall or art behind it.
I expect there to be phones released that have a see-through display, mostly gimmick early stuff that are basically nothing but an empty bezel ring.
Probably not anywhere in the near future, unless we’re talking a huuuuge bezel. You’re phone isn’t exactly empty space inside so you’d either need those to be transparent as well, or you’d need to fit them all one the bezel… so either you’ve got a big bezel or terrible battery life, probably :P. This is all speculation of course. Frankly, I could only really see a company doing it as a publicity stunt because I can’t imagine such a phone would be… good? Cool, yes… But having a transparent display sounds horrible!
Technically there are phones that utilize “transparent” screens right now, for things like under display cameras. So, there’s definitely use cases for the technology, and cool stuff you could do with it, but I’m not convinced you’d want a fully transparent display in a phone. Maybe headsets or glasses or something.
It’s definitely a gimmick as a traditional display. It can’t even make proper use of transparent videos: it’s just transparent when the microLED is off, so the darker the pixel colour is, the more transparent.
You can make the transparent channel of a transparent video display as black, but any black parts of the video that aren’t meant to be transparent will end up being transparent anyway.
Is not completely a gimmick though: it could be very useful for a HUD(heads up display) such as in vehicles or in augmented reality HMDs(head mounted displays(AR goggles such as Microsoft hololens and google glass))
I would argue it’s not “against all odds”. The add-on devs probably know better how YouTube is working than the bunch of underpaid, outsourced script writers that are tasked to implement the stuff. The latter also have to make sure that it doesn’t break for legitimate viewers (oh, sorry, I meant “impressions”).
The YouTube team at Google isn’t all outsourced and generally Google uses it’s top talent for the money making side of the business
The people in the ads side are some of the best around. The problem is: they don’t necessarily care about ad blockers.
My laptop came pre installed with Firefox and ublock origin. Google Chrome had ad blocking in it as well. The devs in the company don’t like ads any more than anyone else… Also ads are a major security risk, and using ad blocking is just good opsec.
Your perception of Google software engineers is way off. They’re more often than not some of the best software engineers in the industry because their hiring bar is very high, and they get paid like it. YouTube is an astounding complex problem to solve with thousands of moving parts and non-trivial problems. It’s honestly astounding people are able to build sites that complex, and that they’re not only common but extremely reliable.
The issue is there are even more extremely intelligent software engineers outside of Google than in, and many of them spend some of their free time working on FOSS projects including ad-blockers. It’s also almost always harder to be red team (attacker, or the ad-blockers devs) as opposed to blue team (defensive, or the people trying to stop them).
The car did what it was programmed to do— unfortunately, that’s not what was best for the time. I think some kind of human override is needed for this type of situation.
But this feels more like a general car problem than anything. Car infrastructure is typically not pedestrian friendly :(
Removing pressure from her leg could have meant bleeding to death before paramedics could arrive. As horrifying as it is to have a car parked on your leg, she was stable and as safe as she could possibly be. Removing the car from her leg wouldn’t have reduced the pain - chances are it would’ve got a lot worse and I bet emergency services didn’t remove the car from her leg as soon as they arrived, they would’ve done a bunch of prep work first (especially given her drugs for the pain).
When there’s a serious accident, you stop what you’re doing and wait for help. Only act if you’re trained or if it’s very clear that something needs to be done right now (e.g. if a car is on fire and someone is inside it).
If the weight of the car stopped her from breathing it would have been a very different thing.
You are adapting your arguments to the situation.
It should be clear that no self-driving car will ever know what “the right thing” is in cases like this and it would require human interaction/intervention to resolve*. This is simply because the car would be unable to gather the necessary information about the situation.
That should not deter us from adopting self-driving, as self-driving vehicles will be the biggest boon to pedestrian safety seen since the advent of urbanization.
One could obviously imagine a future where other vehicles could contribute information about the situation so that the vehicle in question could take actions and react based on what happens around it and seeing different perspectives than its own. Interactions with robots or drones could potentially also contribute information or actively aid in the situation.
If the vehicle was intelligent enough to converse with other humans or even the human in question, or at least use human voice to gather information to aid its decision making this could also be different. But the vehicle itself will always struggle with the lack of information about what is actually going on in a situation like this.
If the weight of the car stopped her from breathing she’d be dead.
The facts of the matter are:
The car is programmed to stop and turn on its hazard lights when it detects an obstruction underneath it.
That is good policy, overall, for when a person is trapped under a vehicle
As exemplified by this situation, where moving off her leg could endanger her life
A larger narrative was attempted to be extrapolated from the smaller narrative here of a car endangering someone’s life.
However as has been described already, this car did not endanger anyone’s life any more than a human-driven car would have. In fact, given then scenario of a pedestrian literally flying into its path, it behaved optimally for that scenario. Something a human driver may not have done.
I like how you just keep on talking about what we all agree on.
Would you like to imagine how you would argue if the first sentence you wrote was true?
That’s when the interesting scenarios start showing up, including how humans are ready to grab the pitchforks when an automated system kills someone, but when humans do it 10x more it’s perfectly fine.
NO, a human driving a car and hitting another person is NOT perfectly fine.
People just didn’t make a big fuse about them because our society already have the institutions to deal with this kind of situation.
The driver would be punished according to the legal institution. If it is a deliberate murder they would go to court and be trailed.
Local media will also make sure the culprit would be punished socially. Everyone in town will know who hit our neighbor.
On the other hand, the responsibility of driver-less vehicles are not well defined yet. Is the engineer responsible? Is the programmer responsible? Is the CEO of the manufacturer responsible?
This is why these incidents receive so much outcry.
Presumably because it uses LFP battery cells? If that’s the case, then the lower rated range is not as important since those cells tolerate many charge cycles to 100%.
One typically only charges to 80% with other Li battery chemistries so one effectively loses that top 20% of range.
I’d argue you’re not really losing it if you never use it all in the first place. People put too much thought into range when all they’re doing is short trips most of the time.
I thought we already knew they spun, given the incredible amount of angular momentum in their accretion disks. Seems like a “duh” thing to prove with image data that the physics data already implied.
I thought so as well but the article says the spin doesn’t match the accretion disc, I’m not sure if that’s s significant aspect of the discovery possibly? I’m not well versed in relativity to be honest
Edit: forgive me, someone below said pretty much this
engadget.com
Top