RagnarD

Where does it get the realtime data for this?

Because of almost certainly fraudulent science. See https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabricatio.... Research was misled for decades down the path of assuming that Amyloid plaques are causative of Alzheimers, a now disproven theory (there's an association, but that's not the same as causative.)

Scientist Ruth Itzhaki spent years studying a far more promising theory of Alzheimer's: that it's caused by viral infection in the brain, particularly HSV-1, best known for causing cold sores. Most have it, so there are clearly other factors at work, likely related to susceptibility in particular individuals to to the virus infecting the brain and spreading over time. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34205498/

The implication is that anti-viral treatments are likely to inhibit and potentially cure Alzheimer's. There is already unintended evidence along these lines, both via antiviral drugs and vaccines.

No.

Including "Dropout" as some significant metric is truly idiotic. Meekly going through a university degree isn't indicative of being a paragon of virtue or success, and it's a safe bet that most higher end convicted fraudsters had a degree, probably an advanced one (i.e. the large majority of politicians in that group.)

There's a classic book from 1985 about an early, successful attempt to make one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eudaemonic_Pie

She should sue the city controlling that police department, into oblivion. Or at least to the absolute max she can get.

Drop in the bucket for them. Giving Zuck some jail time would be the more appropriate message - there's no doubt he knows and approves of the kind of evil activity the New Mexico law enforcement dug up.

I didn't say they were. I feel it too.

I said better, not faster. Primarily, it writes better code, works more smoothly, is better at describing what it's doing and what it's done.

One solution: do NOT just program for work. If it's not work related - where management can dictate how you work - you can whatever you want, and if what you want is to keep writing software and not outsource your brain to an AI, absolutely do so.

Totally agree. I'm baffled by those who don't clearly see that Codex works better than C.C. in many ways.

All lower case, instant won't read.

I have an RTX 6000 Pro Max-Q, which has 96GB VRAM. It identified the hardware correctly but incorrectly thought it had 4GB, at least if I interpret the RAM dropdown correctly.

Then it shows the full resolution models, which are completely unnecessary to run quality inference. Quantized models are routine for local inference and it should realize that.

Needs work.

This is really important work.

Try Meetup.com. It's unfortunately gone downhill in many ways, but there are still people using it. Search for in-person meetups in your area and if any look interesting, sign up and go to some events.

Curious why the large majority of the clips are about water. If that's spontaneous, maybe it's interesting psychologically.

You're both completely missing the point. It's important that an LLM be able to perform exact arithmetic reliably without a tool call. Of course the underlying hardware does so extremely rapidly, that's not the point.

Being able to perform precise math in an LLM is important, glad to see this.

The author confirms that they ARE, so what's your "of course they are not" about? You might have misunderstood my obvious meaning: is the output webpage fully generated without human tweaking just from the paper alone?

Yes, exactly what I mean. Thanks.

"This AI child knows about the world more than we do since it has been trained on the whole internet, but it doesn’t have millions of years of evolution, genes, or a nervous system to back up its morality and empathy. This means we need to install morality in AI from scratch. But how do we install something in a software system that we can’t even define ourselves?"

Two things jump out to me. First, there's a vast amount of information about morality in that internet-scale data dump. It's not some mystical thing orthogonal to knowledge, which ties directly into the second thing: maybe the author can't define it, but many others can and do, especially philosophers, though YMMV given which philosophy and philosopher.

viz: "What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code."

There are different systems of ethics, and those themselves can be reasoned about. We should want one that values rational human life. And among that vast data dump, there's no doubt that those ethical ideas have been extensively written about - so it can be used as a reference point to actively emphasize and select the ideas.

Have you gotten any nastygrams from Wolfram about this? They're pretty protective of their IP. Not saying I think that it's some violation of it, but I could see them being alarmed.

And those are all auto-generated?

I think this is extremely impressive if it's totally auto-generated. Is there any human guidance or is it completely automated - PDF in, web page eventually out?

Fun hack, sure, but why on earth isn't the focus on porting the accounting data to a new, currently supported accounting system?

Based on some reading in a study group using both the Hays and Waterfield translations, I'd definitely recommend Waterfield over Hays.

This misses a hugely important advantage of C# in Blazor WASM (beyond the IMO obvious fact of the huge superiority of C# vs. JS/Typescript) - namely, the ability to use an enormous number of NuGet packages in your browser page. And that covers a very broad range of capability.

But why are you? Unless it requires interfacing with a JS library or some JS operation on the DOM, the goal of a Blazor app is to write in C#, not JS. What's your JS code doing that it requires passing C# objects to it? (That said, Blazor supports JS Interop, see https://dev.to/rasheedmozaffar/intro-to-js-interop-in-blazor...)

This feels like a pretty deceptive article title. At the end, he does say:

"What We Built vs. Production Tools This is about 200 lines. Production tools like Claude Code add:

Better error handling and fallback behaviors Streaming responses for better UX Smarter context management (summarizing long files, etc.) More tools (run commands, search codebase, etc.) Approval workflows for destructive operations

But the core loop? It’s exactly what we built here. The LLM decides what to do, your code executes it, results flow back. That’s the whole architecture."

But where's the actual test cases of the performance of his little bit of code vs. Claude Code? Is the core of Claude Code really just what he wrote (he boldly asserts 'exactly what we built here')? Where's the empirical proof?

I guess I've seen enough over the years that my thought is: It's Google - of course they suck. It's practically their definining characteristic. This is no surprise.