This ignores legal realities about property and transferring wealth. When she buys him for 400mil, she will briefly place the money in escrow, reducing them to 700 and 400mil. Then, when he becomes her property, Taylor also gains his assets, reaching 1.5 billion when the escrow is released.
Nerp. People that aren’t doctors also sometimes believe drinking bleach cures covid. Please check with an expert before deciding which bones are and are not fairly important.
The fibula isn’t a weight bearing bone. The part near the ankle is important, as it’s part of the joint, but the middle doesn’t do much. It’s frequently used for bony reconstruction, like for head and neck cancer surgeries.
Nah, it’s just a old school chat bot following a predefined flow chart. And in this flowchart someone implemented an improper email check.
It’s pretty much the same as if there was just a website with an email field which then complains about a non valid email which in fact is very valid. And this is pretty common, the official email definition isn’t even properly followed by most mail providers (long video but pretty funny and interesting if you’re interested in the topic).
You can use symbols like [ ] . { } ~ = | $ in the local-part (bit before the @) of email addresses. They’re all perfectly valid but a lot of email validators reject them. You can even use spaces as long as it’s using quotation marks, like
A lot of validators try to do too much. Just strip spaces from the start and end, look for an @ and a ., and send an email to it to validate it. You don’t really care if the email address looks valid; you just care whether it can actually receive email, so that’s what you should be testing for.
You’re not going to get code injection via an email address field. Just make sure you’re using prepared statements (if you’re using a SQL database) and that you properly escape the email if you output it to a HTML page.
TLD is just another DNS layer, try an SOA or NS lookup for “com.” those are obviously hosted somewhere. Hell the “.” at the end is even another layer with the root nameservers. You’d probably trip up a bunch of systems that filter on common convention rather than the actual RFC, but you could do it.
It makes the system as a whole simpler. Your computer only needs to remember one root DNS server (although most computers allow setting 4 for redundancy) as opposed to one DNS server for each TLD, and it also makes adding TLDs easier.
+ symbols aren’t always used for aliasing though, and companies that strip them out can break the email address. There’s no guarantee that [email protected] is the same person as [email protected].
I have a catchall domain and used to use email addresses like [email protected] with a Sieve rule to filter it into a “shopping” folder, but these days I just do [email protected] without the category or filtering.
Even “algorithm”, you could say! The text adventure game I made in BASIC when I was 14 is going to blow your mind. It is 100% artificial and uses logic (IF statements), hence AI!
Yeah mate you’re talking out of your ass. A bunch of if statements can, in fact, constitute an AI depending on the context. You don’t know what you’re talking about, stop trying to pretend you do.
AI is a broad concept, a pathfinding algorithm can be considered AI, a machine learning image generator can be considered AI, a shitty chatbot with predefined responses (like this one) can be considered AI. Reducing something to a stupid sentence like “just a bunch of if statements” to try to make it seem absurd is. I can reduce something like ChatGPT the same way and it’d be pretty much as accurate as your take.
You can draw any AI as a predefined flowchart, that’s literally the point, they just make decisions based off of data. Large NLP algorithms like ChatGPT are no exception, they’re just very large involving incomparably heavier mathematics.
Here is a good stackoverflow answer to it that actually gives credible sources (including from the people who pioneered AI themselves): stackoverflow.com/a/54793198
AI is very broad. You can use many different definitions of varying specificity to describe AI which can all be correct, even a shitty chatbot counts as AI despite being so basic. There’s no bottom limit for the complexity of AI.
Selecting a canned-text response based on simple keywords is a long way from AI, and it’s foolish to equivocate equate the two of them.
Also, chill tf out, and don’t be so aggressively presumptious. I have enough experience with the topics in question to point out how misleading this statement is.
I suppose you didn’t click the link I sent – either that, or you think you know better than some of the leading figures in the field of AI… it’s not “a long way from AI”, it IS AI in its design and its purpose. It’s misleading to assert that it isn’t AI because it doesn’t meet your arbitrary complexity standard.
I doubt you have any relavant experience in AI research or engineering based off of how you treat the concept of AI and even data science in general here… boiling the bot down to “just a series of if statements” – and then implying that lack of complexity makes it not an AI – is extremely naïve and is itself misleading, you can do that for anything, every program is ultimately just a bunch of if-else/goto and simple math operations. It’s just an attempt to conceptually reduce it so much that it seems absurd that it could be in the same category as more advanced AI. Despite the name, AI doesn’t have to meet some bar for “smartness”, it’s a ridiculously broad term and any program intended to mimic human behaviour falls under AI (no matter how poorly it does it).
You confidently and rudely/condescendingly asserted something that is very blatantly ignorant of the subject of AI, I find it reasonable for me to assume that you had no idea what you were talking about, and I find it reasonable to very plainly call you out.
Also you misused “equivocate”… it’s not a word used to compare two things, it means using double speak/speaking evasively, “to equivocate the two [AI vs. chatbots]” doesn’t mean anything. Did you mean “equate”?
I did click your link. The accepted answer there states:
"The term artificial intelligence denotes behavior of a machine which, if a human behaves in the same way, is considered intelligent.
Again, I don’t think that selecting basic responses based on keywords found in the string meets the criteria for being qualified as an AI, as anyone with experience of a chat bot this simple knows it won’t hold up the illusion of “intelligence” for very long.
I did mean “equate”, you’re correct. The rest of my point remains - a very simple chat-bot like this is leaps and bounds from what would be termed an AI these days. To equate the two is misleading.
The answer you’re referring to (not the accepted answer but the highest voted yes) also says
Tic-Tac-Toe is a very simple game, so it is very easy to make a simple application behave exactly the same as an intelligent human would. So, if this is the definition of artificial intelligence to which you subscribe, then yes, you would be justified in calling your “jumble of if/else statements” an AI.
In this case I feel like it is a safe, if somewhat useless, application of the term.
The ambiguity arises when you ask what it means for “if a human behaves the same way”. If you word it like that then something like ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion wouldn’t count, because you can easily see they’re not human even if you didn’t know first, but then this tic-tac-toe bot would count. It’s a definition they didn’t elaborate on enough so we don’t know what they mean by “intelligent human behaviour”. Maybe “intelligent human behaviour” extends to just giving somewhat relevant answers based on certain words/lexemes in the sentence? Certainly that intelligence is human, I mean a dog or seal can’t do that, only a human. As it stands there is no complex art or chat AI that can’t be distinguished from a human, so if we want to restrict it to actually acting like a human then AI doesn’t exist, unless we’re talking about simple tasks like tic-tac-toe, and there are programs that surpass humans like chess engines which also wouldn’t be considered AI, which I find a silly definition to go by. “Human intelligence” doesn’t mean “as smart as the average human”, it means sentient-like capacity to make decisions, even if it’s extremely simple. The task itself doesn’t change what counts.
That is why I find the take by the pioneers of AI a lot more useful – they don’t put some arbitrary subjective limit on complexity that disqualifues seemingly obvious examples of AI like the IEEE’s ambiguously worded definition does.
What’s in “these days” doesn’t exactly matter – sure, average people nowadays often only use AI to mean complex ML/NLP AI and not the other types of AI, but that doesn’t stop other AI from existing and being AI lol. And especially since people use it the previously common way too still – people who play video games will still call the bots/NPCs “AI”, or call the pathfinding algorithm “pathfinding AI”, for example. And a majority of data science/AI literature will still call simple AI like this one in the post “AI”.
It’s easy to see why asserting your poor definition of AI as the correct one and anything else (even the definition that most professionals in AI agree to, which the comment I sent has a link to multiple with reasons to their credibility over others, one is literally the 4th most cited book in this century) as “misleading” is pretty annoying. You’re trying to gatekeep AI and put your own subjective interperetation of one specific definition on it and ignore multiple leading AI professionals’ definitions lol…
Im not attempting to “gatekeep” anything. I’m pointing out that drawing a parallel between a keyword-based chat it script and a full LLM is disingenuous.
Wdym drawing a parallel? I literally never did that lol, I just said it’s AI even if it’s not LLM-level AI despite “just being a bunch of if statements”. They don’t have to be the same complexity in order to be in the same grouping. My original comment was exactly “it is an AI tho”, I didn’t say or imply “it’s an advanced neural network capable of taking on the greatest of commercial LLMs”
You’re totally, technically correct and I apologise :)
Reading this back it seems I’ve had a kneejerk reaction to seeing the word “AI” slapped onto a basic chatbot. I appreciate that yes, by all metrics it’s an AI - yet it draws a parallel between this kind of Hello-World chat-bot and the current state of AI, which I felt is misleading. Like comparing a canoe to a cruise ship, you know?
Fable does this too. At least the third one. I'd married a beggar with the honest intention of lifting up one of my kingdom's most socially aware instead of settling for some brainless, peacocking noble, and all he did with his time on the throne was become a national embarrassment on the same old street corner.
So. Remembering the existence of this "Henry VIII" achievement that I'd thought I was never gonna bother getting. I took my beloved beggar-king down to the treasury, positioned him at the very top of the overflowing pile of gold he always seemed to forget we had, and shot him in the head. And then I started thinking about that achievement.
“This is a real quote, because nobody would ever pretend to be a famous person just to lie on the Internet.” - Margot Robbie, Internet forum moderator and occasional actress
An AAAA cell has 200-350 mohms internal resistance. A 9v battery has 6 of them in series (many of them are literally that, others have their cells as a stack of plastic buckets). The nose ring is a short run of wire, it’s idunno a 0.2 ohm heater?
I just tested this (for science!) with a 9V battery and an iron nail of roughly nose-ring diameter. Both the nail and the battery get unpleasantly hot after several seconds. I don’t think they’d get hot enough to burn you, though. (Don’t take my word, though, please!) I believe the internal resistance of the battery does also increase with the temperature, so it effectively somewhat self regulates itself.
Common nose ring materials like Titanium and Stainless Steel are 4× and 7× more resistant than iron, which means they should dissipate more power than the nail, and thus get hotter. I was calculating something around 3 milliohms for a titanium 16 gauge 10mm wire, and 0.7 milliohms for an iron wire.
Regardless of material, at 1000 milliohms internal resistance, i think the battery itself is doing most of the heat dissipation. (But also over a much bigger surface area!)
About 10-20s, I left it on until it didn’t seem to be getting much hotter. I also didn’t want the battery to overheat and fail catastrophically. I think because the “wire” is such a large gauge, there’s not enough current for it to get seriously hot. In a foam cutter, you’re passing all that current through a much smaller cross-sectional area.
Edit: just to confirm, I did a little math. A 10cm steel wire with a tenth of the diameter would have a resistance of 5 ohms. That means that instead of 1% of the total heat dissipating in the thick wire, 80% of the heat is dissipating in the wire in foam cutter’s case, and there’s more total resistance, so more heat dissipation as well.
This is because:
A = π r²
R = ρ × L / A
So resistance is proportional to the material resistivity (ρ), the length (L), and the inverse square of the radius (r⁻²). That is to say, decreasing the radius by a factor of 10 increases resistance by a factor of 100.
How does one need to spend $8000 on a car and $12000 on Uber? Someone who makes $400k/year is definitely not driving around in a crappy car that breaks down a lot lol
In NYC of all places. The subway takes you everywhere. And nobody’s mentioning the porn budget. I guess this guy is subsidising all the free porn everyone else is consuming.
Why not get rid of First Past the Post voting, implement Ranked Choice / Alternative voting, and then we won’t have to fucking have this conversation at all?
Because the powers that be benefit from the status quo too much. Hell, even the Electoral College doesn’t do the average person any favours, and that’s still going strong
lemmy.world
Top