Autonomous AI Robot Creates a Shock-Absorbing Shape No Human Ever Could
scitechdaily.com
scitechdaily.com
(reference: https://old.reddit.com/r/Metric/comments/cpbi2g/americans_wi... )
What is the metric equivalent of this statement? (from TFA)
To answer your question, "moving" would have been a perfectly acceptable substitute. You could also use "crawling", "creeping", "worming", or "wriggling".
The one that I specifically described as a meme comment? You're saying it's technically inaccurate? Thanks, criticism noted.
Here's another example: what's the metric equivalent of "footing" the bill? The verb "to foot", in this example, has the exact same etymology as the noun "foot", but it isn't used as a measurement.
It's like asking what the imperial equivalent is for "the poem's meter". The question is nonsensical, unlike the comment you were replying to.
Sure, the comment was whimsical and flippant, but it was based on a legitimate objection: why express the pressure in an incredibly obscure way? The objection has sense, and the joke is related to it. Your knee-jerk reaction to the joke, however, conflates disparate categories.
They don’t have centimeter worms in the metric world I guess?
If we had a machine to convert that horse into energy we could power Britain for about 20 years. (Britain uses a few quadrillion BTUs annually).
People invent tools to increase our abilities. That doesn’t mean when a human uses a tool, the tool does the work.
A human made this thing. The AI was part of the process but a human did it.
In a very literal sense, tools are "doing the work" to precisely the degree to which it's not food calories that empower them.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48534-4 (Open-Access)
I had wondered why they weren't doing this in simulation but didn't realise that Finite Element Analysis gets weird in the regions they're exploring.
Reminds me a lot of the "Chemputer" concept for automated chemical synthesis expriments. https://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/cronin/
So, something that humans absolutely could do.
I'm only focusing on that. We could use the exact same process and tools minus AI and do it, which would be slightly less efficient, that's it.
Good job.
It is not a language model, and it doesn't run on a GPU, but it is definitely a mechanical implementation of searching a solution in a space.
This seems more like AI than the very recent rebrand of ML. Machine learning can be a sub-system of AI systems but in itself was not thought of as AI for a long time.
I favor a model of intelligence where one measures problem-solving capability along multiple axes and defines an N-dimensional shape that describes a hypervolume of 'general' intelligence. One could certainly argue that because this program solves problems that can only meaningfully be measured along one axis that it has too few dimensions to be called intelligence. The trouble with that is software generally works best when specialized for problems with a single axis, so by that definition 'general intelligence' is either unlikely to happen in that space at all or won't be energy efficient if it does.
What would likely have a higher intelligence is a 'cyborg' - which could just be a human accessing this program via conventional means - who adds this program's problem solving capability along one axis to their existing hypervolume of intelligence. So maybe not artificial intelligence, but definitely an artificial intelligence expander.
If you mean it's AGI, then no, definitely not, but then, nothing is. (Whoever was about to stand up and say "how do you know that ChatGPT isn't AGI", don't. You'll thank me in three years that those words are not attached to your name in public.)
If you mean, does it fall into what people would have described as AI before marketers, executives, and other similarly ignorant people started using "AI" to refer specifically to generative models, then yes, it absolutely is.
Call it machine learning or automated optimization. Arguably you could do the same thing with a greedy algorithm iterating over all solutions. Would that be AI too?
Which is why we should stop using it, and refer to A* as A*, LLMs as LLMs, evolutionary algorithms as evolutionary algorithms, et cetera. I doubt this will happen in my lifetime.
Try, test, fail, change parameters, repeat.
The 'AI', to me at least would suggest some kind of intelligence to 'make informed assumptions' at least.. But not sure. Its confusing.