Ha, that's a great point... I can probably work on a meta "table of content" for each database, shouldn't be hard to do. But generally the database descriptions say what they have - public domain books, library genesis non-fiction, etc.
> Language models are capable of producing and digesting substantial volumes of text. More text than any single person should ever be expected to handle in the course of a lifetime. Compared to the speed at which a human can read and write, these models are the linguistic equivalent of a chainsaw. It’s much the same with computer vision, and generative algorithms producing videos and images of events that never occurred and things that don’t exist.
It’s my belief that, in our current artificial intelligence boom’s haste to grab as much business as possible, we are essentially handing out chainsaws to unqualified and inexperienced people who don’t appreciate the responsibility entrusted to them, and who probably don’t require such power in the first place. And that is not the consumers’ fault—this is all on the companies that are pushing it into their laps.
> Some would say that, compared to the tangible hazards of losing a bodily extremity or dropping a pine trunk through the bedroom ceiling, misuse of AI by irresponsible or malicious actors sounds downright genteel. But think about how quickly memes and misinformation flow through social media and the larger internet. Whoever first used the word “viral” to describe such spread, they hit that nail right on the head.Social media craves that stuff, and AI provides the almost effortless ability to produce unlimited quantities of exactly what it desires. And the reward for the creator, as much as the users of an AI product can be called the “creator” of that content, is a shower of likes, reposts, updoots, badges, and the tiny dribble of dopamine brought by those things. Thus the system perpetuates itself.
> Unlike the venerable chainsaw, AI doesn’t give any indication that it is being misused. It doesn’t growl, shake, kick, or protest. It doesn’t even give a useful indication that “hey this result might be completely useless hogwash, I dunno.” The user doesn’t get to see what happens inside, or know precisely where the information originally came from, or evaluate how the model may have compromised reality to produce an output that looked plausibly like something a human would accept. It just hums along quietly, churning out line after line of approximately whatever it believed was asked of it.
Tolerance is a specification/contractual value - it's the "maximum allowable error". It's not the error of a specific part, it's the "good enough" value. If you need 100 +/- 5%, any value between 95 and 105 is good enough.
Using two components to maybe cancel out the error as you describe. On average, most of the widgets you make by using 2 resistors instead of one may be closer to nominal, but any total value between 95 and 105 would still be acceptable, since the tolerance is specified at 5%.
To change the tolerance you need to have the engineer(s) change the spec.
I immediately thought of those videos when I read the title, but somehow she is missing from the wiki page, even though there is a section on popular culture.
> Cool thing about wiki is that you can edit it! That way the next person to read it gets the benefit of your knowledge.
Only if they're lucky to arrive in the narrow window between you making your edit and it getting reverted by the power user squatting the page. In practice you can't really edit wikipedia unless you put a lot of time and effort into getting good at wikipedia politics.
This is not true in my experience; you can make a wide range of possible edits without being reverted. Knowing which ones those are requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, not its politics. (There is politics, but it's not like every edit is a battle of minds.)
You'd need to read up on the notability guidelines and find a secondary source to figure whether you can make this edit stick. Though then again, there's often no "power user squatting the page" of any kind, so it might not be reverted even if you fail to adhere to this.
How about a browse feature?