I don't think that's how it works. If it exactly looks like something protected by laws like copyright or whatever your country uses, I highly doubt that any court would say that it's fine just because it was created by AI.
Probably would have helped more to lower the bridge even more 🤣
And we'll never hear of that one again.
The problem is that using those tools no matter how energy efficient will add to the total amount of energy humans use, because even if an AI generates an image faster than a human could, the human still needs 100W constantly.
This doesn't mean, that we shouldn't make it more efficient but let's be honest, more energy efficient AI just means that we would use even more AI everywhere.
Standards are as mentioned in the article often extra careful to prevent confusion and thus often stricter than widespread conventions with things they allow and don't allow.
a/b*c is not ambiguous because no widespread convention would treat it any other way than (a/b)*c.
But you can certainly try to proof me wrong by showing me a calculator that would evaluate 6/2*3 to anything but 9.
So if there is not a single calculator out there that would come to a different result, how can it be ambiguous?
Update: Standards are rule-books for real projects to make it simpler to work together. It's a bit like a Scrabble dictionary. If a word is missing in the official Scrabble dictionary, it doesn't automatically mean that it's not a real word, it just means that it wouldn't be allowed to play that word in official Scrabble tournaments.
Same with (ISO) standards. Just because the standard forbids it doesn't mean it's not widespread or forbidden generally. It's only forbidden in a context where all participants agreed to follow the standard.
It's practically impossible to do that because (applied) mathematics is such a diverse field and there is no global authority (and really can't be).
Math notation is very similar to natural languages what you are proposing is a bit like saying we have an ambiguity in english with the word "bat". It can mean the animal or the sport device. To prevent confusion the oxford dictionary editors just decide that from now on "bat" only refers to the animal and not the club. Problem solved globally? Probably not :-)
What you can do/try is to enforce some rules in smaller groups, like various style guides and standards are trying to do. For example it's way simpler for a university to enforce certain conventions and styles for the work they and their students produce. But all engineers in Belgium couldn't care less what a university in India is thinking about math notations.
For real projects that involve many people there are typically industry standards that are followed that work a bit like in the university example and is enforced by the participants of the project.
Ooh now I get you, sry. True. But sadly you now know the truth and you have to be careful with the implicit multiplications on your tax forms from now on ;-)
That's the correct answer if you follow one of the conventions. There are actually two conflicting but equally valid conventions. The blog explains the full story but this math problem is really ambiguous.
Oh sry. I'm one of those people who are to stupid to detect sarcasm in text comments, unless it's very obvious. Probably a combination of it actually being a hard problem and me not being a native speaker.
Hey Sam Harris is that you?
wischi
joined 2 years ago
That's not why JS is a big pile of crap. It's because the language was not thought through at the beginning (I don't blame the inventors for that) and because of the web it spread like wildfire and only backwards compatible changes could be made. Even if with all your points in mind the language could be way nicer. My guess is that once wasm/wasi is integrated enough to run websites without JS (dom access, etc.) JS will be like Fortran, Cobol and Telefax - not going away any time soon, but practically obsolete.