• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 27th, 2023

help-circle


  • From what I remember and what a quick search on the internet confirmed, B didn’t actually deny her anything. He actually went out of his way to do as much good for her as he could. He claims to have replied “Language.” because he knew other people at NASA with more say on her job would find her, which would get her into trouble (and they did find her even before his first Tweet).



  • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.detoProgrammer Humor@programming.devSus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Sure. You have to solve it from inside out:

    • not()…See comment below for this one, I was tricked is a base function that negates what’s inside (turning True to False and vice versa) giving it no parameter returns “True” (because no parameter counts as False)
    • str(x) turns x into a string, in this case it turns the boolean True into the text string ‘True’
    • min(x) returns the minimal element of an iterable. In this case the character ‘T’ because capital letters come before non-capital letters, otherwise it would return ‘e’ (I’m not entirely sure if it uses unicode, ascii or something else to compare characters, but usually capitals have a lower value than non-capitals and otherwise in alphabetical order ascending)
    • ord(x) returns the unicode number of x, in this case turning ‘T’ into the integer 84
    • range(x) creates an iterable from 0 to x (non-inclusive), in this case you can think of it as the list [0, 1, 2, …82, 83] (it’s technically an object of type range but details…)
    • sum(x) sums up all elements of a list, summing all numbers between 0 and 84 (non-inclusive) is 3486
    • chr(x) is the inverse of ord(x) and returns the character at position x, which, you guessed it, is ‘ඞ’ at position 3486.

    The huge coincidental part is that ඞ lies at a position that can be reached by a cumulative sum of integers between 0 and a given integer. From there on it’s only a question of finding a way to feed that integer into chr(sum(range(x)))





  • after leaving can’t join another for a year

    Can you fix this? There was enough misinformation floating around about this already when this feature went into beta.

    Adults can leave a family at any time, however, they will need to wait 1 year from when they joined the previous family to create or join a new family.

    it should say something like: “After joining, can’t join another for a year”





  • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.detoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldAutomation
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    So is the example with the dogs/wolves and the example in the OP.

    As to how hard to resolve, the dog/wolves one might be quite difficult, but for the example in the OP, it wouldn’t be hard to feed in all images (during training) with randomly chosen backgrounds to remove the model’s ability to draw any conclusions based on background.

    However this would probably unearth the next issue. The one where the human graders, who were probably used to create the original training dataset, have their own biases based on race, gender, appearance, etc. This doesn’t even necessarily mean that they were racist/sexist/etc, just that they struggle to detect certain emotions in certain groups of people. The model would then replicate those issues.



  • Eh, nothing I did was “figuring out which loophole [they] use”. I’d think most people in this thread talking about the mathematics that could make it a true statement are fully aware that the companies are not using any loophole and just say “above average” to save face. It’s simply a nice brain teaser to some people (myself included) to figure out under which circumstances the statement could be always true.

    Also if you wanna be really pedantic, the math is not about the companies, but a debunking of the original Tweet which confidently yet incorrectly says that this statement couldn’t be always true.


  • It’s even simpler. A strictly increasing series will always have element n be higher than the average between any element<n and element n.

    Or in other words, if the number of calls is increasing every day, it will always be above average no matter the window used. If you use slightly larger windows you can even have some local decreases and have it still be true, as long as the overall trend is increasing (which you’ve demonstrated the extreme case of).


  • so the names of the ai characters HAVE to be stored in game…

    Some games also generate names oh the fly based on rules. For example, KSP stitches names together based on a pre- and suffix and then rejects a few unfortunate possible combinations such as Dildo, prompting a reroll.

    I suspect with your game, they just fed it a dictionary of common words though without properly vetting it.


  • I’d argue that with their definition of bots as “a software application that runs automated tasks over the internet” and later their definition of download bots as “Download bots are automated programs that can be used to automatically download software or mobile apps.”, automated software updates could absolutely be counted as bot activity by them.

    Of course, if they count it as such, the traffic generated that way would fall into the 17.3% “good bot” traffic and not in the 30.2% “bad bot” traffic.

    Looking at their report, without digging too deep into it, I also find it concerning that they seem to use “internet traffic” and “website traffic” interchangeably.