zimmie

larryjw said:

When first installed, the ChatGPT app highlights the warning that it may return false information, 
The May 10 Lancet published the following article, along with detailed supplemental addendum showing the interaction with ChatGPT which anyone can then reproduce to verify the results. 
The dangers of using large language models for peer review

ChatGPT responded with totally made up material, sounding quite authoritative. 

Banning ChatGPT would seem a good idea. It would give alternative AI systems which actually can tell the truth an opportunity to be developed -- if that can be done. 

Large Language Models like GPT-4 are inherently lying machines. 

GPT isn't strictly lying, you just aren't asking it the question you think you're asking. People think they're asking the question they put in the prompt. What GPT actually does is produce something which looks like what an expert would say in response to the prompt. For example, experts cite stuff when they're asked about legal or medical matters, so the response should have citations. If there are no high-quality real citations to include, make some up which look plausible.

This behavior becomes much more obvious when you realize GPT (and Bard, and so on) will "believe" anything you tell it is at the other end of something which looks like a URL. The domain doesn't have to resolve, and the path doesn't have to be valid. An expert would load the page and potentially respond with new information based on what they read there. GPT can't actually load a URL or read, but it can fake a response which looks like what an expert who did all that might say.

People have been doing things like telling Bard that Google discontinued Bard months ago, and it responds with something like "Oh. I'm sorry, according to the link you provided, you're correct. Bard was discontinued in March."

Edit: Put "believe" in quotes. As Larryjw pointed out, the model doesn't actually know anything, so it doesn't actually believe anything. Ultimately my point is people think of GPT as being built to produce correct output, when it's actually built to produce plausibly formatted output.

I would be surprised if the MFi program even considered charging speeds for wired connections. Of course Apple is going to use USB-PD to negotiate charging.

For MFi, they care a lot more about manufacturing standards (label ensures a minimum level of functionality) and security implications. I kind of suspect the phones are only going to have a USB 2 channel (look at the USB-C charging cable for their laptops), but maybe a limited version of Thunderbolt. After all, they have their own Thunderbolt controller core and their own IOMMU to lock it down. Maybe the phones get a two-lane controller instead of the full four-lane controller the tablets, laptops, and desktops get. Then to use Apple's extensions to the Thunderbolt standard, you have to be MFi-certified. Think like how the watch charger and phone-MagSafe both involve proprietary extensions of Qi.

ITGUYINSD said:

Each episode is basically the same.  Some opulent resort that no one can afford and most of the show talks about how Eugene Levy has some sort of phobia about something or another and how he normally never leaves the resort.  More of a "Watch Eugene Levy do things he's never done before" show than a travel show.

Mildly entertaining if you want to watch something that doesn't require a lot of thought.

1. Arctic TreeHouse Hotel in Finland - $300-$650 per night
2. Nayara Tented Camp in Costa Rica - $800-$1200 per night
   
3. Gritti Palace in Venice - $800-$1200 per night
   
4. Amangiri in Utah - $3k-$4k per night
   
5. Kudadoo in the Maldives - $5k-$7k per night
6. Kruger Shalati Train Lodge in South Africa - $600-$900 per night
   
7. Verride Palácio Santa Catarina in Lisbon - $500-$5k per night (they have a weird variety of rooms)
   
8. HOSHINOYA in Tokyo - $500-$1k per night
   

Kudadoo and Amangiri were the only wildly expensive ones. Several of the others are actually pretty reasonable for a vacation involving an international flight. During the winter (when the aurora is visible), Arctic TreeHouse in Finland is around $650 per night, but during the summer it's $300 or so. More than a Motel 6, but I've had to pay more than that for worse hotels in much less interesting parts of the US.

Xed said:

tht said:

I'm curious why Apple didn't, well, is rumored not to have, put the computing chip bits in with the battery pack too. If would have made the goggles lighter, slimmer, thermally cooler. The only reason I can think of is that it's pretty difficult to push >5K 120 Hz through a wire, and this would have 2.

It may have to have a fan to cool all the chips and to cool your face.

Why does it need 5K (14.7M pixels) if the screen is an inch from you eye?

That's when you need pixel density the most.

Our field of vision is about 165º per eye horizontally (with ~120º binocular overlap) and 130º vertically. 20/20 (6/6)  visual acuity is defined as the ability to see the separation of two lines placed one arcminute apart. There are 60 arcminutes per degree, so that comes out to 9,900 horizontal pixels by 7,800 pixels per eye just to keep up with 20/20 vision. Visual acuities up to 1.5x sharper are pretty common.

Let's target 20/20 (6/6) vision and a 4320p (7680x4320, erroneously marketed as "8K") screen per eye. That would be able to cover 7680/60 => 128º horizontally by 4320/60 => 72º vertically, which excludes basically all of your peripheral vision. Both of my eyes are sharper than 20/20. My stronger is 20/12 (6/3.8), or 1.6x sharper than 20/20. To keep up with that over the same area, I would need a 12288x6912 display.

Targeting 20/40 (6/12) and a 5K (5120x2880) screen per eye yields 171º by 96º. This would cover peripheral vision passably (though still not well), but the sharpness would be on the level of the pre-Retina iPhone screens.

Xcode Cloud is running on amd64. As far as those of us outside Apple can tell, it's on rackmount Mac Pro units (definitely appears to be Xeon W processors). The Mac Pro is their last current amd64 product. It doesn't make sense to use their old processor architecture for their shiny new remote compilation and testing system.

I would be shocked at this point if Apple doesn't announce Xcode Cloud moving to aarch64 at WWDC. That implies an ARM Mac Pro or a rackmount ARM server, even if only for their internal use. It may be announced for some date in the future, but it will be announced and previewed at least.

thadec said:

... The first iPhone had a 3.5" screen, 128 MB RAM, a single core RISC SOC and the original plan was no app store with an emphasis on HTML5 apps. ...

People keep saying the original plan was no app store, but that was never true. It was crystal clear from the moment people started poking around inside them that the plan was to allow native applications in the future, but the system wasn't yet organized enough to let other people in. They pushed web applications simply because the phone had a competent browser and could run them before the internal cleanup was done.