Assuming we shrink all spacial dimensions equally: With Z, the diagonal will also shrink so that the two horizontal lines would be closer together and then you could not fit them into the original horizontal lines anymore. Only once you shrink the Z far enough that it would fit within the line-width could you fit it into itself again. X I and L all work at any arbitrary amount of shrinking though.

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.

Source

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.

Same. I had PayPal do an automated charge back because their system thought I was doing something fraudulent when I wasn’t. Steam blocked my account.

Talking to support and re-buying said game did fix the issue for me.

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.

If House has taught me anything, it’s D, but then E.

Because it’s a cat.

That’s a Spell Card though.

Without knowing any specifics of the TOS or the exact setup beyond what I could gather in this thread: generally speaking they could still send you a bill through email or otherwise.

After that, if you’re not paying up, they might be able to successfully get the money out of you through court regardless, depending on a few factors. What’s more likely for smaller sums is that they’ll just drop it and ban you though.

IANAL of course.

Not every meal in a “$x/plate” restaurant is gonna cost the same though. It’s not hard to reach a disparity between the cheapest and most expensive reasonable meal (similar sizes) of around a factor of 2 at many restaurants.

Why is the server getting twice the tip if I order the most expensive plate and dessert vs cheapest plate and dessert?

I think the humor is meant to be in the juxtaposition between “reference” in media contexts (e.g. “I am your father”) and “reference” in programming contexts and applying the latter context to the former one.

What does “I’m your father” mean if the movie is jaws?

I think the absurdity of that question is part of said humor. That being said, I didn’t find it funny either.

That was a response I got from ChatGPT with the following prompt:

Please write a one sentence answer someone would write on a forum in a response to the following two posts:
post 1: “You sure? If it’s another bot at the other end, yeah, but a real person, you recognize ChatGPT in 2 sentences.”
post 2: “I was going to disagree with you by using AI to generate my response, but the generated response was easily recognizable as non-human. You may be onto something lol”

It’s does indeed have an AI vibe, but I’ve seen scammers fall for more obvious pranks than this one, so I think it’d be good enough. I hope it fooled at least a minority of people for a second or made them do a double take.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too—there’s a distinct ‘AI vibe’ that comes through in the generated responses, even if it’s subtle.

Or “watch”. That way they don’t have to make it obvious that their customers won’t own it but still don’t straight up lie.

This exact image (without the caption-header of course) was on one of the slides for one of the machine-learning related courses at my college, so I assume it’s definitely out there somewhere and also was likely part of the training sets used by OpenAI. Also, the image in those slides has a different watermark at the bottom left, so it’s fair to assume it’s made its rounds.

Contradictory to this post, it was used as an example for a problem that machine learning can solve far better than any algorithms humans would come up with.

In Roguelikes and Roguelike-adjenct games there are also a few games that get close. (I’d even argue some totally eclipse SV/Terraria in that regard, but that depends on your definition.) Some, but not all, of them are even completely free and open source.

Off the top of my head, a few examples would include Dwarf Fortress, UnReal World and Nethack. Maybe some Space Station 13 servers if you count that too.

Yeah. I fail to see how it could even be true on a conceptual level.

If it were true, what would happen on that day, or probably a few days prior, is that there would be many new Bitcoin forks that use the same transaction history (and thus the same balances) as Bitcoin. After possibly a short scramble and chaos, one or potentially multiple of those forks would then be seen as the Bitcoin while the rest fade to obscurity.

Cryptocurrencies, especially big ones, fork all the time. All it takes is an individual who wants to make a fork. Yes, that means if you have any currency on that chain before the fork, you’ll have that same amount on both currencies after the fork. In the rare case where both blockchains after the fork hold any value/respect though, this gets EXTREMELY funny if someone had an NFT on that chain before the fork. Now they have two NFTs (one on each side of the split) and could sell them to separate people, or keep one and sell one, etc.

For clarity: when I wrote “fork” above I was talking about “hard forks” specifically.