Another way to increase safety is to reduce the availability of illegal stills without quality control by enforcing the ban.

(Anyone who thinks otherwise presumably also thinks all hard drugs should be legalized since this presumably wouldn't lead to an increase in consumption.)

I doubt it. The article suggests most is from inhaling indoor dust from synthetic textiles.

But what about already much more popular ML-based applications: upscaling, frame generation, denoising? These are currently vendor specific. E.g. DLSS is only supported on Nvidia GPUs. Could these run on arbitrary DirectX 13 GPUs in the future by using the new API?

Granted, GPU manufacturers would likely not be keen on getting their tech on other platforms, but engine developers like Epic would clearly want to use it if they come up with their own ML upscalers, denoisers etc in the future.

I actually remember a similar problem from some compound that was mainly formed as a byproduct of some old Canadian nuclear reactor design. As the tech gets phased out, the material is no longer available in significant quantities, with consequences for a projects that need it (like Iter).

Some things can be cheap if they are produced as a byproduct, but very expensive if they have to be obtained directly.

That does nothing to protect the human body from the radiation damage.

Talking about microchips is a distraction.

Looks like a contradiction. If you identify reality with a probability distribution (rather than just plain facts), then that requires a "true" objective probability distribution.

> If I'm indifferent to sports teams (very broad distribution) and you're a rabid fan of A (sharp, narrow distribution), then it might take you a long time to express a point in a way I'll understand – but conversely I might be able to express "team B is good actually" in a way that just does not compute for you.

That sounds far too vague for me.

The pacing, the great costumes and set design by Moebius, the actors Bruce Willis and Milla Jovovich, and the unusual ideas (like the alien opera singer) were all more than enough to carry the movie.

But my argument also works for any other probability distribution, e.g. P(heads)=0.5 vs Q(heads)=0.99.

> Still, there's no avoiding the inherent asymmetry in KL divergence.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise, I was talking about his interpretation.

I don't think this particular interpretation actually makes sense or would explain why KL divergence is not symmetric.

First of all, the "difference" between P and Q would be the same independently of whether P, Q, or some other distribution is the "true" distribution.

For example, assume we have a coin and P(Heads)=0.4 and Q(Heads)=0.6. Now the difference between the two distributions is clearly the same irrespective of whether P, Q or neither is "true". So this interpretation doesn't explain why the KL divergence is asymmetric.

Second, there are plausible cases where it arguably doesn't even make sense to speak of a "true" distribution in the first place.

For example, consider the probability that there was once life on Mars. Assume P(Life)=0.4 and Q(Life)=0.6. What would it even mean for P to be "true"? P and Q could simply represent the subjective beliefs of two different people, without any requirement of assuming that one of these probabilities could be "correct".

Clearly the KL divergence can still be calculated and presumably sensibly interpreted even in the subjective case. But the interpretations in this article don't help us here since they require objective probabilities where one distribution is the "true" one.