Readit NewsThe general shape of these arguments is: "Playing chess/go well, or making scientific discoveries requires specific way of strategic thinking or the ability to form the right hypotheses. Computers don't do this, ergo they won't be able to play chess or make scientific discoveries".
I don't think this is a very good frame of reasoning. A scientific question can take one of the following shapes:
- (Mathematical) Here's a mathematical statement. Prove either it or its negation.
- (Fundamental natural science) Here're the results of the observations. What are the simplest possible model that explains all of them?
- (Engineering) We need to do X. What's an efficient way of doing it?
All of these questions could be solved in a "human" way, but it also possible to train AIs to approach them without going through the same process as the human scientists.
The developer of Balatro made an award winning deck builder game by not being aware of existing deck builders.
I'm beginning to think that the best way to approach a problem is by either not being aware of or disregarding most of the similar efforts that came before. This makes me kind of sad, because the current world is so interconnected, that we rarely see such novelty with their tendency to "fall in the rut of thought" of those that came before. The internet is great, but it also homogenizes the world of thought, and that kind of sucks.
The alternatives that the author suggests are much more complicated, both in terms of the implementation and in terms of convincing the user to give you their full address.
What else would I assume?
If there's a 1TB limit I would expect that to be described as "create files up to 1TB in size".
But more importantly, the real issue is regardless of how old they are an unelected individual is doling out hyper-privileged access to sensitive data to folks without any kind of oversight. It's a total mess.
It's hyperbolic to the n-th degree to call these "the best of nerds" as well.
We already have 5+ replacements that are far more robust(XML, YML) and IMO they are not great replacements for JSON.
Why? Because you can't trust most people with anything more complicated than JSON.
I shutter at some of the SOAP / XML I have seen and whenever you enable something more complicated inevitably someone comes up with a "clever" idea that ruins your day.
This is why the "subscribe to remove ads" thing never took off in a big way. Users love it, but advertisers hate it and it craters the value of the ad space you sell to whomever doesn't think it's worth it/can't afford it.
If you set the subscription fee above this value, you as a service will be better off regardless of the advertizers.
On the internet, the fact is this: Most companies do not offer a reduced ad load in exchange for your subscription money. In fact, they will be happy to take money from every source they can. The fact that The Verge is doing so reflects that they understand their audience and are trying to meet them halfway. It also reduces the cost of the subscription for you, the end user.
This feels like a situation where an organization tries doing something laudable, but still gets criticized for it.
I am perfectly willing to pay extra to support a website or service that I'm using, but only if it removes all ads.