Could be, if you can set up a millions of dollars regulatory apparatus to keep online some really old MMOs for the 100 people worldwide who want to play them, there's really nothing you can't regulate.
This is a common mischaracterization of stop killing games. It does not propose publishers keep games online indefinitely, but to provide the bare minimum to the community to host them if they decide to shut the servers down for good. If the 16-year-old Unturned dev could do it, so can AAA studios
They're pretty up front about the fact that the final result is going to have be some sort of compromise.
Based on the words of the most involved proponents of the movement have said, the absolute least they could be forced into accepting would be "Developers can't sue people hosting reverse engineered servers after the main game has gone offline". Which is trivial to comply with (just don't sue someone), but probably insufficient for living up to the main messaging of the movement (since there's a lot more games that people care about preserving than games people care enough about preserving to completely re-implement servers for).
Slightly more reasonably, there's the pitch of "release your server binaries". As the market stands at the moment, that'd be difficult, because in large studios it's common to have all sorts of licensed software involved in hosting your backend, but it's the kind of thing that's pretty trivially responded to on new projects: companies selling software for game service backends would have to adjust their licenses in response to their customers' legal requirements, but that's far from impossible given all the licensed code that's running on client machines already.
In the best possible world, consumers would get access to the source code of the entire project after the company is done making money on it, but everyone involved seems to think that's a pipe dream.
If you think about it, those who shape mainstream opinion on operating systems were always mostly bought off, and invested in the mainstream operating systems. That investment meant that a niche operating system like Plan9 or BeOS was never going to see wide support from the opinion shapers, even if those OSes had some interesting ideas.
I just did a captcha the other day that asked the user to select which items can fit inside the sample item (which was a handbag). You'd think that a multimodal deep learning model could figure out what objects fit inside other objects if it's going to cure cancer or whatever, but no I'm assuming that it needs to be taught explicitly.
There's a fun experiment with toddlers where they re-enter a room but the car they just sat in was replaced by a tiny version: They will try to get into the car even though only their foot fits in.
So size/scale is not as easy a concept to model in our minds as we might assume.
Do you cache data on the client and write buffer it on the way back to the server? I made a key value store as a hobby project, that also kind of streamed the data and it was convenient to do that .
Hehe :) in that sense I'm not sure if I exist in the physical world at all. It's more of an in-my-head thing. I perceive the outer body as entirely separate from my actual self. Maybe that's due to my dissociative disorder, I dunno for sure.
The problem with natural keys is that nobody ever says, "My bad, I should have spelled my name the same way on this form as I did when I registered for the service, I promise not to do it again." Instead they say, "No matter how I spell it, you should have still known it was my name!"
that's nice, but the US digital asset stockpile is not the strategic bitcoin reserve. The sentence that controls acquisition in the strategic bitcoin reserve is the one before it:
'The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce shall develop strategies for acquiring additional Government BTC provided that such strategies are budget neutral and do not impose incremental costs on United States taxpayers.'
I wonder what budget neutral means. Does it mean that they have to find spending cuts in other areas in order to acquire additional BTC?
One would think that the difficulty of making a company profitable when it's training larger and larger LLMs, combined with the diminishing returns and model collapse phenomenon, would make it so that companies don't wish to stop training larger models. I assume that they continue training larger models because whichever company stops training larger models would fall behind in the race to win new rounds of funding, but if that is the case what is the ultimate valuation that these companies are trying to achieve being valued in the biliions already?
Diminishing returns means that the user gets less marginal benefit with each larger model, and the model collapse phenomenon means that models trained on new training data might be less good than older models. Have straightforward mitigations been put in place such as filtering out from the training data forums where users like to share AI generated content?
