So a knife-themed cryptocurrency then?
917 karma · joined February 15, 2025
The article mentions later that it's a PVM-20L2MD [1]. This is a professional CRT monitor for medical devices. It uses the same signals as a consumer TV, but comes with a higher quality tube that has a sharper picture.
OneDrive is treated as a normal app that is installed by default, you can actually just uninstall it through Add or Remove Programs in the Control Panel.
To prevent chat apps from consuming lots of bandwidth typically your connection is severely bandwidth restricted until you pay. If they didn't then someone could simply stream movies from their chat apps.
The problem isn't that there's not enough checklists, the problem is that there's one pilot and he's trying to fly 3 Boeings at the same time from the air traffic control tower.
> These unreliable warnings can lead to “alert fatigue” and, sometimes, a mental habit of discounting them.
This is a problem the airline industry also struggles with and even more checklists is not the answer. A lower workload and better crew resource management is.
Of course government censorship becomes a lot easier if you only need to put pressure on one company.
Apple is just as guilty for shipping laptops with hardware issues that you just have to work around. And unlike this Asus issue the Macbook mux was on by default. You had to turn it off in the settings if you wanted to entirely avoid the issue and then you would have no way of using the discrete GPU.
The laptop works fine in Optimus mode even with external displays, you just lost a bit of performance and you're missing out on some display features like G-Sync. So it is highly likely that most users always use the laptop in Optimus mode. If you primarily use the laptop as a laptop you probably wouldn't even know the mux feature existed.
The problem is Asus shipping extra features in their hardware that are not properly QA tested. It looks like they only thoroughly tested the golden path.
Even if the large LLM vendors respect it, there's enough venture capital going around that plenty of smaller vendors are attempting to train their own LLMs and they'll take every edge they can get, robots.txt be damned.
We're making electric super cars that still use a steering wheel and gas pedal. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's deficient. Humans haven't fundamentally changed in the past 100 years, so it is probably the most intuitive way to manually control a car.
The typewriter/keyboard is probably the most intuitive method to input alphabet characters. Of course that doesn't preclude entirely new ways to control our computers. But if you set out to simply replace the mouse and keyboard without fundamentally changing how we interact with a computer, then you're setting yourself up for failure.
When it makes a mistake, did it just have a too limited understanding or did it simply not get lucky with its prediction of the next word? Is there even a difference between the two?
I would like to agree with you that there's no special "causal power" that Turing machines can't emulate. But I remain skeptical, not out of chauvinism, but out of caution. Because I think it's dangerous to assume an AI understands a problem simply because it said the right words.
They're in the "Complete Argument" section of the article.
> This sounds like the archetypical no true scotsman fallacy.
I get what you're trying to say, but he is not arguing only a true Scotsman is capable of thought. He is arguing that our current machines lack the required "causal powers" for thought. Powers that he doesn't prescribe to only a true Scotsman, though maybe we should try adding bagpipes to our AI just to be sure...
It is not meant as an ad hominem. If someone thinks our current computers can't emulate human thinking and draws the conclusion that therefore humans have special powers given to them by a deity, then that probably means that person is quite religious.
I'm not saying you personally believe that and therefore your arguments are invalid.
> Since the real world (including probabilistic and quantum phenomena) can be modeled with deterministic computation (a pseudorandom sequence is deterministic, yet simulates randomness), if we have a powerful enough computer we can simulate the brain to a sufficient degree to have it behave identically as the real thing.
The idea that a sufficiently complex pseudo-random number generator can emulate real-world non-determinism enough to fully simulate the human brain is quite an assumption. It could be true, but it's not something I would accept as a matter of fact.
> I've re-read the argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) and I cannot help but conclude that Searle argues that 'understanding' is only something that humans can do, which means that real humans are special in some way a simulation of human-shaped atoms are not.
In that same Wikipedia article Searle denies he's arguing for that. And even if he did secretly believe that, it doesn't really matter, because we can draw our own conclusions.
Disregarding his arguments because you feel he holds a hidden agenda, isn't that itself an ad hominem?
(Also, I apologize for using two accounts, I'm not attempting to sock puppet)
This is the important part. Evolution prepared us to build and maintain social groups that help us hunt for food and survive. Maintaining that social group is much more important to our nature than our ability for rational thinking.
Thus our rational thinking will readily make way for any beliefs that are required to maintain the social group, even if they are entirely contradictory and easily disproven.
You can't block puberty as an adult. Most people are already past puberty once they turn 18.
I'm not sure what my personal opinion is on the topic, since I'm principally against infant circumcision. But I have less problems with puberty blockers, since it can still be reversed once a person is old enough to give consent.