> Whether Hungarian qualifies as Finno-Ugric is up for debate,
Is it up for debate? What is the argument against including Hungarian in Finno-Ugric? I mean, the "Ugric" part of Finno-Ugric is in reference to Hungarian.
> [I learned it] "at school" - I learned it at school, I'm not specifying which school
> [I learned it] "at the school" - I learned it at school, the one that was referenced
That's not the distinction that the OP is making. If you say "I am at school", it means you are a student, you attend school. If you say "I am at THE school", it means you are physically at the school building, without specifying whether you are a student. Both of those options are different from saying "at a school." See also "prison", "work", "bed". Similar distinction (in UK English, not so much American English) with "in hospital" vs "in the hospital."
As was pointed out, "I go to the dentist every year" doesn't necessarily mean a particular dentist; it just means some dentist, but we use the definite article anyway, because I guess we consider all dentists interchangeable? We don't use definite articles even when we are referring to a specific thing in specific phrases, such as "I went to Florida by [the] car."
Then there's highly idiomatic use of articles with proper nouns. We say "Buckingham Palace" [no article] but "The Washington Monument" [definite article]. We talk about "The Rockies" [definite article] but "Mount Fuji" [no article]. "Germany" but "The United States." Sometimes we use the definite article when referring to to racial or ethnic groups, and sometimes we don't, and that choice can have complicated social implications ("The Blacks", anyone?).
In short, if a native English speaker tells you that article use is straightforward, then they simply have not considered all the cases.
Here I have no idea why in the last sentence you wrote "all the cases" even though cases is already plural. This is not covered by any of the rules people have been posting in this thread. I'm the GP who started the article usage discussion here.
To me, as non-native, it seems that it may be because the idea [1] of "cases" was already introduced. So, at the start of a conversation you would say:
- The rules of a/the are simple.
- Not really, if you think so, then you haven't considered _all cases_. There's this exception and there's that exception. [...]
but:
- The rules of a/the are simple.
- Not really. There's this exception and there's that exception. [...] If you think the rules are simple, then you haven't considered _all the cases_.
[1] but take what I write with a big grain of salt, I can't explain why I wrote "the idea" or "the start" and I'm not 100% sure if that's correct :)
We frequently use definite articles with plurals. It simply identifies a bounded or known set.
* I understand all languages. -- unbounded set, applies to every language, everywhere
* I understand all the languages. -- bounded set, applies to a known set of languages, i.e. specifically those languages which are supported by a particular program
To be fair, I think "all cases" in this situation is also acceptable.
> since Slavic languages lack articles apart from Sorbian
As far as I know (and as confirmed by Wikipedia [1]), Sorbian does not have articles. Maybe you are thinking of Bulgarian, which does have articles (although the definite article attaches as a suffix to the noun, rather than being an independent word).
I read in a book some years ago how some Sorbian speakers had started to use articles under the influence of German, but I've no idea how widespread it was, and I think it's been discouraged during language revival.
When Wikipedia says "Sorbian uses no articles", it is not telling the full story.
I couldn't find much on this online when I searched for it. But did find at least one respectable reference, which agrees with what I remember:
Abstract:
"Slavonic languages in general do not use articles to indicate (in)definiteness. The development of an article in some of them is the result of language contact. In the case of Sorbian the influence of German led to the use of the demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ and the numeral ‘one’ to indicate definiteness and indefiniteness, respectively. Originally the German system was copied almost without changes, but eventually specific rules developed, subject to phonotactic constraints and restricting the use of the article mainly to intratextual and pragmatic definiteness. The use of the article depended on the kind of text and language (spoken language, Bible translation and original texts, translations from German). Grammatical purism managed to eliminate the use of the article in today’s written variants as well as in most official uses of spoken Sorbian almost completely. In colloquial language and in the dialects, however, the article is very much alive but its use differs considerably from German. There are also differences between Upper and Lower Sorbian, the latter being closer to German usage."
Wikipedia tends to be better on linguistics than some other areas, but best not to become over-reliant on it. This is just one reminder that it does not cover many things.
What's wild about this is that it makes really obvious how limited our perspective on dinosaur biodiversity is. Our best view on the best-known dinosaurs comes from a few places that were really good for finding fossils from specific eras.
And then you're using a bit of the west and Great Plains (Utah, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota) for all the different species that live in North America.
We've only got snapshots of them in time - often from some disaster which aided in the formation of fossils... but all that other time, species evolved and went extinct without leaving a single identifiable fossil.
(One of my families great roadtrips of my youth was out to Dinosaur National Monument during a sibling's dinosaur phase... and it was neat. I was there on a road trip of my own in '09, but it hadn't reopened yet... someday I'll get back out there again.)
Looks like there was a land-bridge to "Europe" around the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary if you stick it in Paleotopography mode.
(I like that mode better because it appears to show the actual landmasses at the time vs the plates with an approximation of the modern masses overlayed)
I work in a field where privacy of customer information is protected by law and we all take this very seriously. So, no, I would not do this, and I think that police (who have vastly much more power over people's lives than I do) should not either.
That's great. Now put yourself in the same situation the cops are working with and not your arbitrarily applied restrictions. The cops clearly do not have these restrictions, so why are you applying something artificial like this?
Flock records public events. None of these apply. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space and the courts have been quite clear on this. Actual legislation would need to be passed to restrict what can be recorded in public settings. A redefinition of "public", basically. And what about the public? Would they also be barred from making their own recordings of public events? Would they be barred from sharing them with law enforcement?
Not necessarily. One could argue my cell phone's signal is in the public when I use it (home or otherwise; it is rather omnidirectional), and the records thereof aren't subject to it the same way as say a search of my phone or my home.
However, in Carpenter v. United States, government entities were found to be in violation of the fourth when accessing historical CSLI records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant (at least over a period of 7 days or more, if I understood it right). Previously, it was considered fair game under the basis of records technically turned over to a 3rd party.
Then there's United States v. Jones (2012), where it was established a GPS tracking device was attached to a car constitutes a search.
It remains to be seen how Flock will ultimately hold up in court. Although a few cases have popped up, I think it's too early to tell.
The police officer is not standing on the street corner, observing public events. They are searching a privately-held database of sensitive information whose use is governed by certain restrictions, which are being violated by the police officer. Whether or not those violations rise to the level of crime does not erase the fact that they unethical, and likely against both Flock's terms of service and the department's policy.
I hold myself to all sorts of standards that are not enforced by anyone outside of me. There are plenty of things I choose not do do despite a complete lack of consequence if I do them.
It's a called integrity and morality. Clearly another thing cops and their sycophants don't have.
Pardon, but I think that someone who carries a gun (and is allowed to use it) as part of their work uniform requires stronger, not weaker ethical guidelines than someone who pushes code.
> The Israeli Effective Altruist firm Irregular caused unsecured AI models to hack real targets.
Why are we saying it this way? They did not "cause AI to hack." This phrasing in analogous to saying "caused the bullet to fire into" instead of "shot."
Bullet trajectories are deterministic. A better analogy would be "caused a pair of trained fighting dogs to bite a passerby by leaving the gate open". There is some uncertainty and variation in the system, though gross negligence and willful endangerment is key.
The details don't matter. If you use a machine to commit murder, then you have committed murder, not the machine. The user is responsible, and the article's phrasing is an attempt to obscure that fact.
> What mechanism would an AI have today to simultaneously kill every single human being?
Lull us into a sense of complacent idleness over the course of centuries by slowly taking on more responsibility for maintaining human civilization, until we've lost all ability to think or act on our own, as in WALL-E. Then just stop helping us.
You are not smarter than your dog in dog behavior.
LLMs have a significant advantage in being trained on all attainable data of any sort about human behavior, which we've established quite a rich record of over the years.
> You are not smarter than your dog in dog behavior.
That's true, which is my point: intelligence is not a scalar value. LLMs are intelligent from us in different ways, as a result of not being human, despite having access to a record of human behavior.
To bring this back to the dog analogy: we have a rich record of dog behavior and yet people still don't know how to be smarter than dogs in dog behavior. Because we're not dogs.
Sure LLMs are different from human intelligence, but empirically this is obviously trending towards that difference being more like a superset of intelligence dimensions (as compared to any human) versus the dog/human distinction which are cognitions that forked like 80 million years ago.
The political, rather than legal, justification for unrestricted gun ownership in the US is that an armed citizenry is able to resist a tyrannical government.
Regardless of your opinion on that argument, I don't think it applies well as an argument against AI regulations.
Is it up for debate? What is the argument against including Hungarian in Finno-Ugric? I mean, the "Ugric" part of Finno-Ugric is in reference to Hungarian.
reply