FaceDeer

When you ask an LLM to write some prose, you could ask it "I'd like a Pulitzer-prize winning description of two snails mating" or you could ask it "I want the trashiest piece of garbage smut you can write about two snails mating." Or even "rewrite this description of two snails mating to be less trashy and smutty." In order for the LLM to be able to give the user what they want they need to know what "trashy piece of garbage smut" is. Negative examples are still very useful for LLM training.

That's just a matter of properly tagging the training data, which AI trainers need to do regardless.

There are open IoT standards.

You "can" do these things in a lot of different ways, the unanswered question is what way is best. That's not just a technical question, it also depends on how easy it is to deploy to the general public. If your toothbrush uses Bluetooth then you need to pair it with something that can speak to it, whereas if it can speak to the Internet then that broadens the ability for various systems to talk to it considerably. You can run a webserver they could visit from any browser, apps for phones, etc.

There's no need for a toothbrush to have access to your phone book. But nobody's saying it should. This whole situation of "hacked toothbrushes" isn't real.

And I'm not particularly pleased to be accused of lying when I'm willing to cite sources and the guy I'm debating with refuses to even address my responses. But you don't see me YELLING IN ALL CAPS about it.

How about stabletokens, many of which are pegged directly to the value of the USD?

Given Turkey's current monetary policies I wouldn't want to use Turkish liras even if I lived in Turkey.

If you need the token's price to be stable then there are stabletokens specifically designed for that.

When it was making the rounds of the Fediverse I spent some time hopping between the reposts adding a comment pointing out its falseness. On one of the threads I got a response that was basically "okay, so this particular story is false, but it still supports the narrative we're arguing and so it might as well be true."

Truthiness in a nutshell. Sigh.

Yes. But failing at the intent of the protocol in the process. When a hacker exploits a buffer overrun to take control of a remote computer, the computer is following its prescribed mechanisms to the letter. But that's certainly not what the computer's owner wants it to be doing.

If adding blocks to a PoW chain had no cost then the chain wouldn't be functioning as its users desire - there'd be no canonical fork any more. It would fail to solve the Byzantine generals problem, which is fundamentally the purpose of cryptocurrency.

In addition to using it as a currency, sure. But as I asked rigatti, is that a problem? At worst one might perhaps argue that the name "cryptocurrency" is misleading, but I've never cared much about semantics like that.

Right. Which is not what I was talking about. This was about how a PoW chain would become useless if there was no cost involved in making blocks, ie, if the "W" part was missing. It would allow anyone to add blocks. There'd be no way to distinguish forks from each other and decide on a canonical one. Being able to agree on a particular fork as being the "valid" one in a decentralized manner is the fundamental secret sauce of what makes cryptocurrency work. All the various protocols boil down to ways of solving that one particular problem.

You're guessing wrong, I'm not a "bagholder." I'm just interested in the tech.

it’s clear that you are absolutely guessing here while anon is spitting facts

I've provided specific examples and links to references. Anon's not done any of that, he's just got mad. Like you, too. Calm down.