I think this was true at one point but not for the past 5-10 years. Based off of using the site I feel like now a lot of things start on other sites (particularly smaller accounts on twitter), get aggregated and popularized on 4chan, and then get picked up on other sites (often regurgitated back to twitter). Knowyourmeme shows this for a lot of things that people typically attribute as original to 4chan. There was definitely a time when a ton of stuff originated on 4chan but these days everything is so interconnected with the same people posting on twitter, reddit, and 4chan that I think 4chan gets a lot of unearned credit
I'm not an OpenAI apologist and don't like what they've done with other people's intellectual property but I think that's kind of a false equivalency. OpenAI's GPT 3.5/4 was a big leap forward in the technology in terms of functionality. DeepSeek-r1 isn't really a huge step forward in output, it's mostly comparable to existing models, one thing that is really cool about it is it being able to be trained from scratch quickly and cheaply. This is completely undercut if it was trained off of OpenAI's data. I don't care about adjudicating which one is a bigger thief, but it's notable if one of the biggest breakthroughs about DeepSeek-r1 is pretty much a lie. And it's still really cool that it's open source and can be run locally, it'll have that over OpenAI whether or not the training claims are a lie/misleading
How is it a “lie” for DeepSeek to train their data from ChatGPT but not if they train their data from all of Twitter and Reddit? Either way the training is 100x cheaper.
Yeah I think that kind of thing isn't supposed to be "predictive". The "rules" in series aren't very clear, sometimes they type stuff out into a keyboard, sometimes they connect a cable from their head, sometimes they just pass stuff around/hack basically just just "telepathically" without even needing the wire, they do whatever seems cool for a scene. I think the "splitting fingers" thing happens in one of the movies but also in SAC, but I think the point is just that it looks interesting and seeing the fingers do that and start suddenly typing quickly gives a sense of tension/urgency that you wouldn't get if it was just the character sitting back and staring at the screen (even if "in universe" they're able to work just as effectively that way)
Agreed the main reason is the point of the show is to be entertaining and visually interesting, and that is entertaining and visually interesting. Why do the robots look like spiders without any of the features of spiders that would actually be useful in a robot but look scary instead of cute to humans? It's not because it's a naive idea of what robots would look like.
But even aside from the fact that visual style outweghs realism in this work, it's not weird or remarkable anyway.
The robot has to type sometimes for the same reason you sometimes have to manually type a password into a keypad or your food order into a pos terminal even though you have a password manager in a phone with a dozen kinds of connectivity in it. None of your dozen forms of connectivity is compatible or available with any of the terminals dozen forms of connectivity. Even if you both have something the same plug, it doesn't mean you can use it.
You may also choose to do your "adversarial interfacing" the manual way even if you had a direct option available and even if you desperately wanted speed, simply for safety.
I was recently reading an article by a Twitter engineering team member discussing how they're reworking a microservice and kept expecting them to mention Galactus at some point. It lives rent-free in my head. This video is a true masterpiece.
I like to sneak in a Galactus reference during system design interview rounds when I feel like I'm about to overengineer the whole thing. I haven't done many recently, but for sure if I'm doing interview rounds, I will try to sneak in some Krazam references.
These are all great, and for me it's even weird to pick a favorite because somehow he's managed to put so much genius into all of those videos and in so many multifaceted ways, it's beyond me. What kind of job/career experience has he had to come up with all of that, so creatively and accurately?
I just don't get how he can have had all this experience and at the same time be able to come up with those creative videos while still holding those insights. Because there's so many clever little things implying he's seen a lot. And created those videos in parallel.
this signal the death of the passive aggressive "take this offline" for me
also favorite comment "This video captures the absolute weirdness of millennials and zoomers inheriting the bureaucratic systems created by baby boomers"
I find it weird how so much generation discussion seems to skip gen x. I see references to boomer, millennial, and zoomer/gen z way way more often than gen x.
Gen X’s arc was going from Reality Bites/Wayne’s World slacker grunge culture into the stultifying white collar Office Space of the Matrix and then disappearing from the zeitgeist entirely after 9/11 made Fight Club’s ending sort of real.
It's too clever and perfect - with all the cheese, and productivity messaging trying to make you insecure and everything with a corporate contrarian appeal. Everything Krazam is just so great writing down to detail.
Agree 100%, even if you can manage an exception it does not look good to be the odd man out. It's easy to imagine people like this being the initial "easy choices" when layoff discussions happen. Not saying people should just roll over, but if you can manage an exception and see work from home as a requirement, I'd view that as your opportunity to maintain employment while looking for a company that takes remote work seriously
>One red flag should be that nowhere in this news article is the reader made aware of the exact nature of the manipulated images or their implications.
Because that was covered in detail when the manipulations were first reported and those articles are linked to in the above article. This is just reporting on the resulting retraction two years after that initial report.
>it's much less dramatic and all the findings were also replicated following this inquiry to show that any image alteration, that might have been made for editorial purposes, does not affect conclusions
Other groups had issues replicating the results with the same oligomer (often just chalked up to its instability), it's not like someone just happened to stumble upon these manipulations casually. This retraction only happened because Nature rejected the author's attempt to publish a correction. This whole thing is a black mark on Nature's record as well so if it really was just some minor change to make a picture look prettier for publishing purposes, I doubt they would have insisted on this action
There really isn't one in my opinion. Academic postdoc positions in many fields are pitched as a stepping stone to professorship, but professor positions are very few so you end up with PHDs continuing the low-pay grind after graduation to prop up academia for a dream that doesn't come true. I think it's good more are recognizing this and just going to industry, maybe eventually this will cause problems and academia can be motivated to fix itself instead of viewing post docs as disposable. Or maybe there's no problem to fix and this is academia just getting correctly recognized as the grind option for people who are actually ok with that
The professor positions themselves aren't particularly cushy at the end of that road. Some postdocs take a look at the prospects of 60-70 hour weeks, very little time to focus on anything scientific or technical, and huge piles of administrative work, and relatively low pay and choose to industry options not out of a lack of the ability to land a professorship.
The fundamental issues with postdoc salaries and grantmaking lies with the US Government. It is the grantmakers like the CDC, NIH, CMS, DARPA, etc that essentially set postdoc salaries for grants.
And these agencies are completely averse to change.
Furthermore, us in industry are NOT going to fund fundamental or experimental research due to relatively low margins.
Absolutely, but most of this stuff happens outside of what shows up in the paper like coming up with excuses on why data points can be dropped or shopping around for different statistical methods that make things look the best. There can even be legit reasons for doing this kind of thing and that's what makes it hard to detect, it's basically just the honor system on whether you're "p-value hacking" or following common methods.
This is kind of why it annoys me a bit when I hear people harping on about trusting science, most science is not as simple as finding objective truths and just reporting them. That's not to say all science is bs and you're better off consulting a magic 8 ball, just that it should never be discouraged to look at methods and conclusions with a critical attitude. There is room for things to be fudged or pushed and very strong incentives for people to do it given how much money and prestige are on the line. It doesn't even have to be as big as a drug trial, one high profile publication can be enough to make a career so you can see how tempting it can be to just change a couple pixels in an image to boost a theory you earnestly believe is true
I don't think those ideas necessarily contradict. If you're using VR to collaborate with someone on the other side of the country (or world) but you only need to collaborate intermittently, then remote collaboration just has to be "good enough" to offset the cost of travel even if in person would be ideal. Meanwhile, for their own employees who may need to collaborate daily, from their point of view they might think in that case it makes more sense to enforce in-person. I doubt Meta's stated goal (at this point) with their VR stuff is that you should never ever leave your house because VR is just as good, seems like it's more "this thing enables remote to be better".
In a painfully literal sense, yeah it's being paid by tax payers because everyone pays taxes. The better distinction is that it is not paid via tax revenue. Even if the FDIC has to levy fees on banks to help cover the cost and the banks raise fees on their customers to cover this, this is not the same as the tax payers funding the bailout because they're not funding it in their capacity as tax payers (where they have no option but to pay the government and would probably prefer their money go towards building a school or something). Additionally, the banks wouldn't just be scooping the extra money out of people's accounts, it would be in the form of higher fees or something which the customer could decide to leave the bank over if they desired. Most wouldn't do this, but again the point is that there is at least an option where as a tax payer funded bailout there isn't. At a certain point, everything in the economy is connected and you could drill deep enough to say the tax payer pays for literally everything, but at that point the label becomes meaningless.
