EForEndeavour

Isn't the whole point of OP that we're currently watching the barrier to generating realistic assets go from "spend months grinding Photoshop tutorials" to "type what you want into this box and wait a few minutes"?

Thank you for sharing some sources. To refute your first one:

- Jane Goodall in this 36-second clip does NOT advocate reducing the global population down to 450 million

- Jane Goodall speaking at a 2020 WEF panel does NOT imply that the WEF endorses any part of her comments

Your comment falsely distorts her words, and falsely equates her with the entire WEF.

More details: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-jane-goodall-populatio...

I mean this genuinely: why do you choose to quote and trust some unreferenced and completely arbitrary 500 million population number that some bizarre unidentified group of people with zero accountability carved into a random stone monument 45 years ago, but "have zero fear of global warming" despite the alarm bells rung by modern, rigorously studied, data- and evidence-informed scientific discourse? Why should readers of this comment give any credence whatsoever to the Georgia Guidestones?

I didn't. It's physically impossible for any perception of emotion or anything else to travel between organisms without the flow of information. Am I missing something?

> But communication is not only, or even primarily, about information. It is about emotion, about establishing our presence and developing or reinforcing a connection. When you ask someone “How are you?” do you honestly care?

I got that far before wincing. What pseudointellectual self-important vapid nonsense is this? How would "emotion" or "establishing a connection" possibly not involve transmission of information?

So falsify and/or misrepresent evidence just long enough to fool a jury. If the ruse is discovered one minute after conviction, who cares? Person's convicted now, doesn't matter?

With the caveat that this is coming from someone with zero training in law: what a load of horseshit.

So conviction is a "trap door" of evidence weight? If someone is convicted based on evidence that is later shown to be totally insufficient to support that conviction, this new information does nothing to overturn the conviction?

Maybe I'm a prude, but this page made me consciously register how pervasive the suffix "porn" has become in decidedly non-pornographic contexts. "EarthPorn", "SpacePorn", etc. are understood to mean gratuitous imagery specifically intended to excite the viewer. (And I just checked: r/PornPorn exists but has been banned)

I would say not much, given regular homeschooling is an intentional choice that self-selects families willing to put in the research and effort to homeschool.

I see what you're getting at, but in your analogy, Leonardo da Vinci (the creative and intellectual driver of the overall work) maps to the black-box LLM behind an API, where the boilerplate web app wrapper maps to the Mona Lisa's constituent oil paints, and perhaps also the backing poplar panel and frame. In other words, wrapping an LLM is like updating the frame around the Mona Lisa.

Just so I understand: this HN post consists of a 6-sentence plain English prompt, and a web app that passes the prompt plus presumably raw user input to a black box LLM API? Is there more?

That's ingenious: the technology simultaneously makes and breaks the scam.

The cleverest business name idea that comes to mind is also the one most likely to get this comment deleted: consider the Scunthorpian[1] business name Cuntermeasure.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem

How did you monitor your apnea before and after your posture correction? And how does one's standing posture affect breathing when lying horizontally -- is it a matter of breathing muscle strength?

Where are you getting the specific values of 6 months and ±2% out 10 years? Genuinely curious to learn more. Maybe back-testing of archived predictions from prior decades against the eventual reality?

How far into the future do you think population growth can be reasonably predicted, and why?

Do you mean caffeine in chocolate?

> Reminder once again that "accuracy" is irrelevant in the real-world.

Accuracy and other quantitative performance metrics are imperfect for sure, but how else do you propose testing before real-world deployment? How do you propose scalable and feasible testing of human students?

> The practice of medicine does not produce cute little cue-card prompts with 4 options.

Ah, but the New England Journal of Medicine's Image Challenges (designed to test the knowledge and diagnostic capabilities of medical professionals) does.

> It's of less-than-zero value to have an 80% machine accuracy and 75% clinician accuracy if the impact of the machine's mistakes are high risk, unconcerned with the impact of the intervention on the patient, or provide little therauptic upside

But this paper does not study the practice of medicine. It intentionally focuses on performance on one specific, well-known medical imaging diagnostic challenge.

Peculiar issues are by definition less common than the usual issues, so you're more likely to have a common issue than a peculiar one.

Not the new voice interface, no: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1d80q59/openai_jus...

Oops. TIL I've been doing it wrong for years. Thank you for sharing this tip!

Treat the credit card as a middleman between your actual cash (e.g., a checking account) and spending. Spend as if it's cash. Pay balance weekly to avoid ever paying interest. Enjoy far superior fraud protection, and an effective discount of roughly 1–10% depending on credit card perks.

Then it's in our interest to push the use of AI to support the meeting class to dictate stream-of-consciousness updates and get a cleaned up memo ready for email. But of course, this risks reducing the (self?)-perceived importance of demanding realtime attention in live meetings.

The extreme ends of the individual-collective continuum (complete lack of laws in favor of autonomy and personal responsibility vs. overbearing legal/regulatory intervention that undermines autonomy) make it clear that real life needs to be somewhere in the middle.

Maybe I'm missing this: what led to the statement that people are seriously overprotective of any and all children? This thread is pointing out that kids who can't swim are allowed in pools, which is dangerous and leads to preventable deaths. Isn't that the opposite of people being seriously overprotective?

> IMO this is getting at a deeper truth that the use of a gender in language, and historically defaulting to "he", was not about creating a bias, but instead it was a pattern which maximises information density and minimises useless information. Randomising the gender as is done today packs useless information into it.

Where can I read more about this "truth"? Where is this assertion coming from that gendered pronouns developed to minimize useless information? It seems far more plausible to me that pervasive defaulting to male experiences caused many (certainly not all) human languages to (1) develop gendered pronouns and (2) default to the male pronoun.

That's beside the point of the comment I replied to, which falsely said homeopathic products were classified as dietary supplements.

Very much false.

1. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, homeopathic products are subject to the same requirements related to approval, adulteration and misbranding as other drug products. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-drug-class/homeopathic...

2. Homeopathic products are "classified as either over-the-counter (OTC) or prescription medicines." https://www.chpa.org/about-consumer-healthcare/faqs/faqs-abo...

> Canada's wildfires last years polluted more than all antropic emission combined

That's inaccurate, and not what the article says. The article quotes research saying the 2023 wildfires added 3 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is "nearly four times the carbon emissions as airplanes do in a year" or "about the same amount of carbon dioxide that 647m cars put in the air in a year."

For comparison, global fossil-fuel and industry sources emitted roughly *37 billion tons* of CO2 in 2023. This excludes land-use emissions: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

There's also the fact that fossil fuel emissions are net-new release of gaseous CO2 that's been sequestered away from the atmosphere for millions of years. Tree cover loss is bad, but forest-fire CO2 was fixed within much shorter timescales, and the article mentions the burnt forest area regrows and starts to sequester carbon again within decades.

Baader-Meinhof strikes again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion

Where could I read more about the distinction between peak oil extraction and production, and the prediction you mention of peak oil extraction next year?