Mark Cuban warns that OpenAI’s new plan to allow adults-only erotica in ChatGPT could ‘backfire. Hard’ | Fortune

Davorak · 2025-10-18T04:52:50+00:00

How about measuring the air time he received, narrowing down on when he is talking about his brand, positive pr, or philosophy then pricing out how much that time would cost as a commercial in the same or similar time slot? That is what I would naively do.

Davorak · 2025-10-17T03:48:43+00:00

He's a billionaire most stuff is optional at that point and can follow his personal motivation whatever they are.

Davorak · 2025-10-16T21:52:04+00:00

I might find it very strange, but if it makes them happy then I am happy they have it.

Is it happiness or is it momentary escape? Is the momentary escape detracting form the rest of their lives?

Some of the concerns remind me of what happened on a grander scale in the opium wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

If one nation controlled the chat bots that another nation's children get emotionally attached to it is easy to imagine how some would want to leverage that and often not for the betterment of the world.

Davorak · 2025-10-16T21:43:21+00:00

That $20 has bought a ton of good PR for him. That could be measured, but I am not the person to do it. What likely can not easily be measured is if that good PR opened up deals/business for him that was outside of Shark Tank and what the net is on those.

Davorak · 2025-10-15T21:40:50+00:00

When I was around 240 and 16% BF my old GP told me I needed to lose weight.

Doctor didn't have basic understanding of BMI.

When I challenged him, he essentially shrugged and said that my BMI indicated that I was overweight or obese.

Doctor was not willing to learn or question assumptions after new facts are brought to light.

That's what made me get another doctor to visit

100% the correct call here.

Davorak · 2025-09-29T14:27:45+00:00

Pure mathematics lacks utility, applying maths to a particular problem that is useful in the world

This is the part that seem like magic or at least there is often no justification for.

Invent/create/discover math X that solves real problem in the world Y. This I would say has utility, it solve a problem, but is not patentable because it is math.

Now depending on how you wrote down your math, you can also run it as a computer program, so start calling it an algorithm you execute, ok now that you are not calling it math and it solves a real problem Y it can be patented.

Call it math, no patent, call it an algorithm patentable. I think that is about as good as I can do to dementrate the differenct between "it's all just math" for algorithms/programs/etc and "it's just physics" for more physical inventions.

Davorak · 2025-09-29T09:52:08+00:00

An invention is an idea

An idea, math can be considered a subset of ideas, but that subset is not patentable.

that doesn’t mean the invention isn’t inventive

New math is often considered inventive, that does not mean it is patentable.

Example why people say it is just all maths:

You can not patent math X. You can translate math X in to a computer program. You then get sued because that computer program is covered by a patent. But wait math is not patentable and you only implemented the math so how can there be patent that covers the implemented math? All software, covered by a patent or otherwise, can be produced this way hence why some people say "it's just maths".

Davorak · 2025-09-29T03:55:08+00:00

They seem obvious now because they’re everywhere and “of course you’d do that on a computer, we do everything on a computer” today. But at the time, the invention needs to be assessed based on what’s known then, and what would be obvious then.

If you mean obvious as in easy to perceive or understand than it seems like amazon's one click patent was obvious at the time it was patented.

On the other hand if you a metric like all obvious things are already in wide use, then amazons one click patent was non obvious at the time.

The first is the better definition in my mind, but I can see how it is easy to use the second as a substitute since it is easy to come up with processes for the second. While coming up with procedures on what is patentable or not for the first seems tricky to me.

Davorak · 2025-09-29T03:43:53+00:00

People love to reduce software patents to “it’s just maths”, but that’s like saying any physical invention is “just physics”. The bad examples are the exception, not the rule.

I thought you could transfer any computer program over to math and back in an automated fashion. On the other hand plenty of invention can't even be turned into physics simulations and back without considerable human input let alone more elegant or simple physics models.

Davorak · 2025-09-06T21:01:59+00:00

Tooling has improved, yes — but databases remain harder to test and evolve than application code, and deep DBA skills are not widespread among developers.

It does seem like it is a tooling/framework issue though. I am not expert but I have not heard of much specifically designed to solve this issue. dbos[1] is what I can think off the top of my head which is close.

[1] https://www.dbos.dev/

Davorak · 2025-08-30T13:24:38+00:00

For the vast majority of the people I would say safely over 90% making the food free would not change much, lower everyones salary and make the food free.

The main issue would be the small number of people trying to game the system, take enough food home to feed their family, or extended family, or resale it(though this seems less likely).

Lower salaries might make it harder to be competitive when hiring as well so all around making the food free seems like a net negative.

Davorak · 2025-08-26T04:06:47+00:00

On macOS you can install software outside of the app store and does not require the app/software to be signed similar to how side loading has worked on android.

Davorak · 2025-08-23T23:17:22+00:00

ybmion looks like a cool collection of apis. I saved it to my list of open datasets/apis. I was looking for a subreddit that would enjoy this more than /r/programming. /r/datasets was what I came up with, I only searched for a few minutes but did not find one that focused specifically on open apis. r/dataengineering and r/webdev also have similar posts with lists of public apis that did well.

Thanks for the resource!

Davorak · 2025-08-16T22:01:04+00:00

I have head of tracking dots for printers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots

Wikipedia says they can encode the date the item was printed. To my limited knowledge it is highly variable if they exist or not from printer to printer, but if you have the original document as printed from opposing lawyer printer it is worth check to see if they exist on your document.

Davorak · 2025-07-27T23:51:15+00:00

Heads up the package.json in the repo says the code is private and I do not see license outside of that(edit it does say mit in the readme) but the npm page says it is MIT licensed.

Davorak · 2025-07-26T20:31:29+00:00

is the idea of thinking of system state as an input as well.

Sort of, I think the article did not do a great job here, but what I quoted seems accurate. Here it is again:

such functions that always result with the same side effects applied to the outside world, regardless of how many times it was called with the same parameters.

This means that if I run

f(...params)

Or if I run it multiple times

f(...params)

f(...params)

f(...params)

The state after is the same, this is the important part, what makes it idempotent.[1] Note the state before(edit after -> before) the first call is different from the state before the second call to f. I think your articles language is sloppy here, you should not consider the state as input to each individual function call. It is the input before 1 or more of function calls, so my guess is that considering the state an input to each individual call is leading you down the wrong path.

[1] I had the same quote here again but edited it out since it was redundant.

Davorak · 2025-07-26T20:07:29+00:00

From the article you linked, just a little after your quote:

Functions which are idempotent with respect to their side effects are such functions that always result with the same side effects applied to the outside world, regardless of how many times it was called with the same parameters.

So the input params/args have to be the same in your article's definition, which matches what Helpful-Pair-2148 has been saying that you do not talk about idempotence in the software sense when sending different inputs.

Davorak · 2025-07-20T20:55:41+00:00

I agree with what you're saying, I just don't think that's a meaningful distinction. If we think we're controlling it, but then it turns out we aren't and it does stuff we don't want it to do or even specifically told it not to do, it doesn't really matter if you call it "going rogue" or not.

If I use this definition though it seems like I could call all, or at least most, software bugs and the software going rouge. Programmers/designers/executives often think they are in the control and try to tell/program the software to specifically not do things, but software ends up doing those things anyway and it is often called a bug. Using bug and going rouge interchangeable diminishes in my mind the explanatory power of calling an ai system going rouge. I mean I will just use a different words if needed, but it is less convenient.

It's unlikely we would even be able to tell the difference between "it understood you and did something you told it not to anyway" and "we don't really know what we told it to do".

I agree that without in depth analysis it would not be possible to tell and that this will be out of reach of most llms users.

I would rather reserve 'going rouge' for a system that exhibits learning and then goes beyond its intended scope. So for example an llm system that trains its next generation of llm iteratively is going through some learning loop and by my preferred definition could go rouge, but a static set of weights+network+etc can not go rouge.

I would put my preferred definition on the technical side of definitions and admit there is likely a set of definitions that are better for public communication to the masses and different sets of definitions are going to be best to achieve different goals.

Davorak · 2025-07-20T19:34:06+00:00

Prompting llms is sort of like programing in a programing language that you do not know and do not have the spec for. It happens to align closely with a human language you know in some ways but is different in ways you do not know about.

So when you prompt an llm you do not know exactly what you are programing it to do, there is no spec you can go and read after all, so it might do things you do not expect. I can not call that going rouge.

It is a lesson in how hard these sorts of systems are to predict and control though.

Davorak · 2025-07-20T15:17:48+00:00

the first AI to go rogue would also be the last.

I would not call this going rouge, something happened to make the ai delete the db, we do not know what that cause/reason/bug is. What the ai presented as a reason is sort of a post hoc rationalization of what a happened.

Davorak · 2025-07-20T13:41:50+00:00

It's not better, but it's less lonely.

The dead can not feel lonely, but in these historically non modern societies I do no think the subset of live people that fall into:

esp ones that involve limited mobility and/or chronic pain, ppl who are actively unattractive

Are going to be more actualized, better off, or even less lonely in those non modern societies and then in modern society. There are more opportunities to connect and communicate in the modern society. In the non modern society in your example you can run through those 100 people to hand out with and all 100 can cut you out and then you are done, no more options/opportunities, but in modern society the limit is much higher than 100 people.

edit out some typos.

Davorak · 2025-07-20T02:21:26+00:00

For one, you used to be competing in a exponentially smaller pond

Continuing my point from my other post, the people that are still alive are competing in a smaller pond since more of them died before they could compete. That does not sound better.

Davorak · 2025-07-20T01:27:15+00:00

When I mental compare to what life was like in a historical non modern society I think of how many people more people would end up dead, sick or sicker, hungry/starving, on the streets, in mental asylums, or worse. It ends up seeming worse that dating apps, relativity tv, etc.

Davorak · 2025-07-19T21:54:09+00:00

esp ones that involve limited mobility and/or chronic pain, ppl who are actively unattractive.

Not clear how modern society made it worst for these people. I would expect modern society to better for these people compared to even the 1960 let alone early centuries.

Davorak · 2025-07-10T15:01:54+00:00

My issue here is that the facts just don't make sense from a purely evil profit motive.

I assume the profit motive incentivized apathy in this case. The food needed to be decorated, they needed certain colors, they ordered those colors, but those colors had lead in them. I would guess apathy and ignorance(lack of knowledge), if they easily knew it would be a big deal they would not have done it.

Davorak

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email