„Google“ dovanoja dalį jos valdomo dirbtinio intelekto, įgalinančio pokalbių robotus

"Kaip ir „Meta“, bendrovė atvėrė prieigą prie savo technologijų išorės programuotojams, tačiau savo galingiausią sistemą laikė paslaptyje.

Kai praėjusiais metais Meta pasidalino neapdorotu kompiuteriniu kodu, reikalingu pokalbių robotui sukurti, konkuruojančios bendrovės teigė, kad Meta į pasaulį išleidžia menkai suprantamas ir galbūt net pavojingas technologijas.

Dabar, rodydami, kad kritikai, dalinantys dirbtinio intelekto (A.I.) technologijas, praranda pozicijas prieš jų pramonės kolegas, „Google“ imasi panašaus žingsnio. „Google“ trečiadienį išleido kompiuterio kodą, kuris maitina jos internetinį pokalbių robotą, po to, kai daugelį mėnesių slėpė tokią technologiją.

Panašiai, kaip „Meta“, „Google“ teigė, kad laisvo dalijimosi technologija, vadinama dideliu kalbos modeliu, nauda yra didesnė už galimą riziką.

Bendrovė tinklaraščio įraše teigė, kad išleidžia du A.I. kalbų modelius, kurie galėtų padėti išorės įmonėms ir nepriklausomiems programinės įrangos kūrėjams sukurti internetinius pokalbių robotus, panašius į „Google“ pokalbių robotą. Jie [1] vadinami „Gemma 2B“ ir „Gemma 7B“, jie nėra galingiausios „Google“ A.I. technologijos, tačiau bendrovė teigė, kad jos konkuruoja su daugeliu pirmaujančių pramonės sistemų.

„Tikimės vėl įtraukti trečiųjų šalių kūrėjų bendruomenę ir įsitikinti, kad“ „Google“ modeliai taps pramonės standartu, kaip modernus A.I. yra sukuriamas, interviu sakė Tris Warkentin, „Google DeepMind“ produktų valdymo direktorius.

„Google“ teigė, kad šiuo metu neketina išleisti jos flagmano A.I. modelio, Gemini, nemokamai. Kadangi Gemini yra veiksmingesnis, jis taip pat gali padaryti daugiau žalos." 

1. Platesnis aprašymas čia.

Google Is Giving Away Some of the A.I. That Powers Chatbots

"Like Meta, the company opened access to its technology to outside programmers, but kept its most powerful system under wraps.

When Meta shared the raw computer code needed to build a chatbot last year, rival companies said Meta was releasing poorly understood and perhaps even dangerous technology into the world.

Now, in an indication that critics of sharing A.I. technology are losing ground to their industry peers, Google is making a similar move. Google released the computer code that powers its online chatbot on Wednesday, after keeping this kind of technology concealed for many months.

Much like Meta, Google said the benefits of freely sharing the technology — called a large language model — outweighed the potential risks.

The company said in a blog post that it was releasing two A.I. language models that could help outside companies and independent software developers build online chatbots similar to Google’s own chatbot. Called Gemma 2B and Gemma 7B, they [1] are not Google’s most powerful A.I. technologies, but the company argued that they rivaled many of the industry’s leading systems.

“We’re hoping to re-engage the third-party developer community and make sure that” Google-based models become an industry standard for how modern A.I. is built, Tris Warkentin, a Google DeepMind director of product management, said in an interview.

Google said it had no current plans to release its flagship A.I. model, Gemini, for free. Because it is more effective, Gemini could also cause more harm."

1. More description here.

Every Former Colonial Empire Is Pitiful and Laughable: British Trident ‘Nuclear’ Missile Crashed Into Sea During Failed Test Firing Off Cape Canaveral

"A British-launched nuclear missile test in January in the presence of the head of the Royal Navy and the Minister of Defence failed and splashed back into the sea.

 

A Trident missile launched off the East Coast of the United States in January from British ‘bomber’ submarine HMS Vanguard “crashed into the ocean” after launch. The missile had a ‘dummy’ warhead and no nuclear material onboard.

 

British tabloid newspaper The Sun revealed the launch failure, and stated the Ministry of Defence had confirmed the story. The ministry insisted despite the training test-firing failure the nuclear deterrent remains “effective”, and that the “anomaly” was “event specific”. The Sun report states claims from the government that it was the test conditions themselves which contributed to the failure, although there was no discussion of what they may have been, although a preference towards using time-expired older missiles due to be scrapped for training could feasibly play a part.

 

Update 1600: Testing equipment caused failure

 

UK Defence Minister says the government has “absolute confidence” in Trident after the failed nuclear delivery system test last month. The Times notes he called the missiles: “effective, dependable and formidable… beyond doubt”.

 

The report further notes former defence committee chairman Tobias Elwood MP said the crash was directly caused by testing equipment “strapped on to the missile itself”. Had the equipment not been present, the missile would have launched properly, he said. Nevertheless, the MP remarked: “yes, of course, this is embarrassing. We don’t like to see this happen.”

 

A government spokesman said the weapon “could absolutely fire in a real world situation” if required and “The issue that occurred during the test was specific to the event and would not have occurred during a live armed fire”.

 

An anonymous source cited by the paper stated “It left the submarine but it just went plop, right next to them”, suggesting the first launch stage — where the missile is pushed out of the submarine and to the surface by a rush of gas, succeeded. The missile is then supposed to ride on several rocket stages, allowing it to leave the Earth’s atmosphere at thousands of miles an hour.

 

The failed launch took place off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the United States and United Kingdom perform all nuclear ballistic missile testing. Another British-launched test failed there in 2016.

 

A specific January date was not given but British Minister of Defence Grant Shapps, who was present for the 2024 test, was in Washington D.C. on January 31st.

 

Given British and American Trident missiles come from the same “commingled” stock, unless the U.S. consciously passed substandard missiles to the British during routine rotation, and if the failed launch in January occurred after the missile had left the submarine as is claimed, circumstances suggest this could be a problem for the United States submarine deterrent as well.

 

Although most aspects of the Trident missiles are of course classified, it is well known considerable parts of the system are American in design, construction, and even execution. The Trident missiles themselves are leased from the U.S., and are not wholly British-owned. While the UK’s nuclear submarines themselves are made in Britain, they depend on U.S. technology and systems to perform their primary mission.

 

A 2015 summary of the 2006 Defence White Paper on Trident by Politico notes of the degree to which elements of the ‘independent’ British nuclear deterrent is, in fact, American and on loan at the sufferance of Washington. While the true picture is complex, down to a combination of official secrecy, “mingled” ownership of weapon systems, and decades of system growth, the report stated:

 

    The report makes for striking reading. The UK does not even own its Trident missiles, but rather leases them from the United States. British subs must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming. And since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral, off the Florida coast.

 

    A huge amount of key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly by Washington, and much of the technology that Britain produces itself is taken from US designs (the four UK Trident submarines themselves are copies of America’s Ohio-class Trident submersibles).

 

    The list goes on. Britain’s nuclear sites at Aldermaston and Davenport are partly run by the American companies Lockheed Martin and Halliburton. Even the organization responsible for the UK-run components of the program, the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), is a private consortium consisting of one British company, Serco Group PLC, sandwiched between two American ones — Lockheed Martin and the Jacobs Engineering Group.

 

The British government did however make clear that the United States cannot prevent a British nuclear launch through a 2005 Ministry of Defence statement. While American nuclear weapons are governed by a chain of command flowing back to the President — the famous ‘nuclear football’ being the President’s ever-present terminal — British nuclear weapons have no such system, and are under the command of the submarine captain.

A government statement on the launch failure is expected later.”

Nolte: didieji prietaisai miršta greičiau (pagal dizainą)

  „2013–2023 metais amerikiečių išlaidos buitinei technikai šoktelėjo 53 procentais. Atsižvelgiant į infliaciją, tai kasmetinis padidėjimas nuo 390 dolerių iki 558 dolerių. Tačiau per tą patį laiką prietaisų kaina sumažėjo 12 procentų.

 

    

 

     Kaip tai įmanoma?

 

    

 

     Na, kaip aiškina „Wall Street Journal“, viena „[didesnių] išlaidų ir [mažesnių] kainų neatitikimo priežasčių yra didesnis pakeitimo lygis[...]“.

 

    

 

     Per dvejus metus „Yelp vartotojai... praėjusį mėnesį paprašė 58 % daugiau pasiūlymų iš tūkstančių prietaisų remonto įmonių, nei 2022 m. sausį.

 

    

 

     „Mes darome dalykus sudėtingesnius, juos sunkiau sutvarkyti ir brangiau“, – žurnalui sakė vienas prietaisų remonto ekspertas. Tai reiškia, kad „sugedus sudėtingai mašinai, technikai sako, kad jiems daug sunkiau išsiaiškinti, kas sugedo“. Ir kai problema galutinai diagnozuojama, „vartotojai dažnai atlieka remonto darbus, viršijančius pusę pakeitimo išlaidų, todėl mašina yra išmetama.“

 

    

 

     Tai matome visur, ne tik su prietaisais. Mes tai matome su automobiliais, elektronika ir net savo namais.

 

     Kai kurie iš jų susiję su mūsų susižavėjimu dalykėliais, tuo, kad trokštame visų varpų ir švilpukų. Tačiau kai kurie iš jų yra reguliuojami. Kai federalinė vyriausybė reikalauja energijos vartojimo efektyvumo lygio, vienintelis būdas tai pasiekti yra daugybė technologijų. Dabar mus apsunkina „[didelio našumo] varikliai ir kompresoriai taip pat greičiausiai bus lengvesni, nes jiems pavesta sunaudoti mažiau energijos“.

 

    

 

         Nulupkite plastiką nuo šiuolaikinio šaldytuvo ar skalbimo mašinos ir pamatysite daugybę jutiklių ir jungiklių, kurių trūksta 10 metų senumo analogui. Šie papildomi komponentai padeda užtikrinti, kad prietaisas naudotų tik tiek energijos ir vandens, kiek jam reikia atliekamam darbui, teigia technikai. Tačiau su daugiau dalių, jų teigimu, daugiau sugenda greičiau.

 

    

 

     Devintojo dešimtmečio pradžioje, kai mokiausi vidurinėje, visas 12 vasaros atostogų savaičių praleidau, dirbdamas ir gyvendamas mažame senelių pieno ūkyje. Vieną dieną pamačiau, kaip močiutė įdėjo skrudintuvą į automobilį. Aš jos paklausiau, ką ji daro. Ji pasakė, kad jį suremontuotų. Net tada buvau šokiruotas. Skrudintuvų niekas netaisė. Mes juos išmetėme. Ji paaiškino, kad skrudintuvui buvo 40 metų ir šis 15 dolerių remontas užtikrins, kad jis tarnautų dar 40 metų, o tai buvo daug pigiau, nei keisti skrudintuvus kas penkerius metus. Tas skrudintuvas yra metalinis, sunkus, kaip žodynas ir sukonstruotas paprastai.

 

    

 

     Po velnių, prisimenu, kartą, kai televizorius sprogo, mano tėtis jį atidarė ir pavedė man išbandyti dalis. Jų buvo apie keliolika. Gatvėje esančioje vaistinėje šalia ekrano buvo vamzdelių testeris su kiekviena pakaitine dalimi, kurios tik panorėsite.

 

    

 

     Kai su žmona pirmą kartą susibūrėme, prisimenu, kaip keitėme variklį skalbimo mašinoje, diržą džiovykloje ir viryklės termoporą.

 

    

 

     Jokie įgūdžiai nebuvo įtraukti, nes kiekvienas, turintis pusę smegenų, galėjo atidaryti vieną iš šių dalykų ir pamatyti, kaip jis veikia.

 

    

 

     Šiandien? Visa tai kompiuterių elektronika. Ką, po velnių, turėtum daryti su „ekranu“?

 

    

 

     Visa tai pagal dizainą. Amerikos religija dabar yra vartotojiškumas. Mes perėjome iš šalies, kuri gamina daiktus, į šalį, kuri perka daiktus. Užuot didinę savo savivertę per šeimą, tikėjimą, pasiekimus ir draugystę, mes įsisavinome šią beprotišką idėją, kad turėtume likti vieniši, kurti beprasmius santykius per socialinę žiniasklaidą, abortai naikinti mūsų vaikus ir vartoti-vartoti-vartoti. Daugeliui iš mūsų prietaiso gedimas yra mažesnė problema, o daugiau galimybių patirti endorfinų antplūdį, atsirandantį paspaudus „Amazon“ raginimą „Pirkti dabar“.

 

    

 

     Iš kur man tai žinoti? Nes nesu nuo to apsaugotas. Net nepanašu.

 

    

 

     Kitas siaubingas šio vartotojo savęs garbinimo rezultatas yra kvalifikuotų amatų praradimas. Užuot gerai užsidirbę pragyvenimui ir patyrę prasmės jausmą, atsirandantį, taisant prietaisus, televizorius, dulkių siurblius ir skrudintuvus, mūsų jaunuoliai pildo lentynas ir stovi už kasos aparato – gryna demaskulinizacija.

 

Kyla klausimas: ar energijos švaistymas gaminant šiuos papildomus prietaisus, viršija šių sudėtingų konstrukcijų sutaupytą energiją, ar ne? Jei ne, tai reikia supaprastinti konstrukcijas.

 

Nolte: Large Appliances Are Dying Sooner (By Design)

 

"Between 2013 and 2023, Americans’ spending on home appliances jumped 53 percent. Adjusted for inflation, that’s an annual increase of $390 to $558. But the cost of appliances decreased by 12 percent during that same time.

 

How is that possible?

 

Well, as the Wall Street Journal explains, one “reason for the discrepancy between [higher] spending and [lower] prices is a higher rate of replacement[.]”

 

Over a mere two years, “Yelp users … requested 58% more quotes from thousands of appliance repair businesses last month than they did in January 2022.”

 

“We’re making things more complicated, they’re harder to fix and more expensive to fix,” one expert in appliance repair told the Journal. This means that when “a complicated machine fails, technicians say they have a much harder time figuring out what went wrong.” And when the problem is finally diagnosed, “consumers are often left with repairs that exceed half the cost of replacement, rendering the machine totaled. ”

 

We see this everywhere, not just with appliances. We see it with automobiles, electronics, and even our own homes.

 

By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.

 

Some of it concerns our fascination with gadgets, that desire for all the bells and whistles. But some of it is regulatory. When the federal government demands a level of energy efficiency, the only way to achieve that is with a bunch of technology. Now we’re burdened with “[h]igh-efficiency motors and compressors, too, are likely to be lighter-duty, since they’re tasked with drawing less energy.”

 

    Peel back the plastic on a modern refrigerator or washing machine and you’ll see a smattering of sensors and switches that its 10-year-old counterpart lacks. These extra components help ensure the appliance is using only the energy and water it needs for the job at hand, technicians say. With more parts, however, more tends to go wrong more quickly, they say.

 

Back in the early 80s, when I was in high school, I spent all 12 weeks of my summer vacation working and living on my grandparents’ small dairy farm. One day, I saw my grandmother put the toaster in the car. I asked her what she was doing. She said to get it repaired. Even back then, I was shocked. No one repaired toasters. We threw them away. She explained that the toaster was 40 years old and this $15 repair would ensure it lasted another 40 years, and that was a lot cheaper than replacing toasters every five years. That toaster is all metal, heavy as a dictionary, and engineered simply.

 

Hell, I remember once when the TV blew, my dad opened it up and tasked me with testing the tubes. There were about a dozen of them. The drugstore down the street had a tube tester next to a display with every replacement tube you could want.

 

When my wife and I first got together, I remember replacing a motor in a washing machine, a belt in a dryer, and a stove’s thermocoupler.

 

No real skill was involved because anyone with half a brain could open one of these things up and see how it worked.

 

Today? It’s all computer electronics. What the hell are you supposed to do with a “display?”

 

This is all by design. The American religion is now consumerism. We went from a country that made things to one that buys things. Instead of increasing our self-worth through family, faith, accomplishment, and friendships, we’ve bought into this insane idea that we should remain single, build meaningless relationships through social media, abort our children, and consume-consume-consume. For many of us, an appliance breakdown is less of a problem and more of an opportunity to experience that endorphin surge that comes with tapping Amazon’s “Buy Now” prompt.

 

How do I know that? Because I’m not immune to it. Not even close.

 

Another horrible result of this consumer self-worship is the loss of skilled trades. Instead of making a good living and experiencing the sense of meaning that comes from repairing appliances, TVs, vacuum cleaners, and toasters, our young men waste away stocking shelves and standing behind a cash register—pure emasculation.” 

 

The question is: Does the energy waste of making these additional devices outweigh the energy savings of these complex designs or not? If not, it is necessary to simplify the designs.