An important stepping stone, perhaps. But I don’t think the final AGI thing will necessarily contain LLMs.

I don't know. I know I used to be pretty AI sceptic, until they became good enough to help with non trivial code problems on their own.

I strongly suspect, that we will come to a point, where it gets impossible to tell if something is AGI and consciouss or not.

History shows continuous evolution, there won't be a "final AGI thing". The definition of AGI is so vague anyways that any conversation around it is hardly useful. 5 years ago, what we have today would have been considered AGI.

Perhaps Douglas-Adamsesque the LLMs will specify the AGI.

Start again. But this time, align your left top molar with the lower right canine.

Are you suggesting that the system is efficient enough, and the users of it are competent enough, that a live moving no-fly zone would be placed somewhere that a drone in the immediate vicinity would be informed and be disabled?

I have my doubts. I would guess one "popping up" would at least be delayed such that it's pretty pointless by the time the drones are notified. Annoying indeed, useful (even to the ne'er-do-wells trying to enforce this crazy stuff) not so much.

DJI has (or, at least, had, a few years ago) a no-fly system that was updated via the Internet. Maybe it's not live, but then what would be the point of these no-fly zones? Just so ICE agents can shoot your drone down with impunity? If they didn't need license to execute people in the streets, I don't see why they'd need license to shoot down a drone.

Journalists documenting the behavior of law enforcement. One needn't report live streaming information for use of a drone to be valuable in a civil society. Law enforcement officers are granted power to perform their jobs, but that power should remain in check lest it be used to deny citizens their rights.

A drone is less useful for "documenting the behaviour of law enforcement" than a cell phone camera operated at ground level. Because it is filming from entirely the wrong angle, at the wrong time (in transit rather than at the enforcement site).

Seems accurate according to my experience. It’s the new investment banks in later rounds that cause it. Bigger investments, stronger guarantees, better preferences, and lack of understanding on the part of inexperienced founders, plus lack of power held by the employees options pool … recipe for “only the banks see any upside.”

alot of financial engineering happens if the company is raising large rounds, if you leave early as a cofounder, they will absolutely mess with your equity. And even if you are there, youre considered an expense, unless the CEO explicitly advocates for you

Yeah, that’s not how my company operates. I’m maintaining my majority share by splitting only. The VCs can go along, or they can hope their next investment is the unicorn.

Yeah, also seems very US-centric with "outstanding shares". Other countries don't allow you to have outstanding shares. Also, where is the "reinvest" option during series rounds. Like, what founder also doesn't reinvest to keep their equity during fund raising?

This is US centric, it's mentioned on the first page, along with the notes and links.

Reinvesting is a minority, edge case. I can't think of a single VC company in the Bay area that can have founders reinvest shares and not cause issues raising.

"...reinvest shares." I don't understand this. I'm guessing it's my lack of knowledge.

I'd expect "reinvest" to mean "supply more capital to obtain more shares" in an attempt to maintain ownership percentage. The founder would have to already be rather wealthy, or be savvy enough to negotiate some other way to maintain their ownership.

I think the comparison for the lay person is just fine. The author quoted the term and explains themselves.

A QR codes encode data to be scanned and converted for the convenience of the user.

These knot graphics encode data to be scanned and converted for the convenience of the user.

> data to be scanned and converted

These appear to be write-only. Where have they documented the method of scanning and conversion? Is it patented?

The publication on arxiv only mentions visual inspection, in the context of being a bad idea.

“Is it patented”?

This is the most non-sensical comment here. That’s not at all how trademarks work.

“Whoa! Some article said this mail app is an ‘Outlook’ for TempleOS! Better call the Microsoft lawyers.”

No, you’re allowed to compare products and ideas and mention their trademarked names without fear of legal issues.

Did the researchers name these “QR codes?”

> Did the researchers name these “QR codes?”

Yes.

Now that the software exists, one can use it from a mounted camera and provide immediate scoring. No need to wait for the human and the target to be in proximity.

Whoa there, M{r,s}. Socialist! Can’t have any of our democratic infrastructure near that crazy idea! (/s)