jijijijij

That, or they are not operating profitable... If demand eats up actual pricing remains to be seen.

You are shifting the goalpost. It's not the original argument anymore.

Why does evolution have to pick one of them?

You are not really thinking this through. How would a fitness reducing mutation become a feature of a genetic line in the first place in asexual reproduction? The "silent" partial carrier dynamic of genetic defects is a problem exclusive to sexually reproducing organisms.

How can sexual reproduction "get rid of them"?

Play it out for a few generations, you will see, there is a frequency equilibrium. We've done this in school with paper, but if you know some programming, it's an easy exercise. Anyway, unless being very detrimental for partial carriers, the bad allele is gonna stay in the gene pool.

No, of course not. But having diploid, paternal and maternal DNA is something you need sexual reproduction for.

Apart from that, it's also wrong because sexual reproduction did not get rid of anything. Just one offspring not affected, but the premise already established the fitness of partial carriers, so that mutation is gonna remain in the gene pool.

The scenario you are painting only exists with sexual reproduction, so it's circular reasoning.

Silly you, thinking the German economy is merit-based. The only question is, if the bribe fits a single token of appreciation, to win a tailored call for bids!

The evolution of sex and sexual reproduction, as opposed to other means of reproduction. It is inherently tied to the difference in genetic maintenance/repair mechanisms between germline and somatic cells. See wiki link above.

Given the fact the large majority of embryos die early after conception, I would call it quite ruthless. And of course, there is intense gamete selection beforehand too.

Sorry, it's not my main interest right now, so I am out-of-the-loop.

Last time I checked, Big Biology was kinda unique going beyond basic popsci, while still remaining interesting and engaging. I think biologists are not the most technically inclined, not really drawn to podcasting. And it's also not the hottest of topics right now, specific research PR and educational voices aren't funded well. There are some journal/university etc. associated everybody-has-a-podcast-now podcasts, but I found them to be rather boring and dry. Individual episodes of the Huberman/Lex Fridman type edgelord podcasts may also be occasionally interesting, but the signal to noise ratio is poor, with a heavy bias towards overconfident and narcissistic guests speaking with false authority, lots of explanatory speculation presented as facts, pronounced political confirmation bias.

Maybe take a well presented episode on Big Biology and see where else respective guests speak or publish?

All of it is a matter of active research, as this relates to the evolution of sex/sexual reproduction, which, contrary to popular belief, is still an unsolved problem in biology. Classical evolutionary theory cannot explain sexual evolution. Any book about "why?" will either be highly opinionated, agenda-driven, out-dated, or simplistic (as are my comments here).

I am not a biologist, so I can not refer to or evaluate any meaningful recent papers on the matter. However, I can recommend the podcast 'Big Biology', which dives into current biology research, theory and philosophy, including sexual evolution.

You may start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproducti...

Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene' is also an excellent read/audiobook. His specific theories of the evolutionary "unit" have been disproven, but his argumentation teaches a lot about "evolutionary thinking". I really wish he stuck with biology and science education instead of becoming this reactionary giga twat.

Nothing flies anywhere, we use superior high speed trains. I faxed a Humorgenehmigungsantragantrag to our Bundesunterhaltungsministerium analyst, immediately. Laugh now, but you are merely lucky the reply got delayed. As soon as the leaves on the rails are dealt with, you will get a formal response that has washed itself! Let us see who is laughing then. It is nobody!

This is not at all comparable to the extent of embryonic rejuvenation. Lol.

Caloric restriction etc. just aids cellular housekeeping. The processes in maintaining gametic immortality are much more radical and transformative. Somatic and gametic genetics are governed completely differently.

Yes, that's my point. Although, I wouldn't say "less room for error", but rather less room for handling error.

Early embryogenesis seems to activate weird genetic pathways, whose function scientists suspect evolved for the sake of complexity alone, to be a genetic integrity stress test.

Mind you, mutation in sexual reproduction isn't at all just accidental "bit flips". The cross-over stage in meiosis always recombines the chromosomal information randomly (to increase environmental adaptability, off-setting the slow rate of sexual reproduction). There is no concept of a "gene" there, the cuts can happen in the middle of anything important, too. This intentional instability needs to be accounted for, biologically.

Before anyone even detects pregnancy, a lot of non-viable genetics have been aborted by the body. As tragic as they are for the becoming parents, miscarriages are a good thing, not misfortune. It's exactly this fail-fast selection process weeding out failed random recombination attempts, which likely would have caused severe functional problems later anyway.

The body isn't a lump of omnipotent cells, but a complex system of functionally primed cells. You cannot do a selective genetic stress test on a developed organism like that. Without radical selection, the rejuvenation process wouldn't be safe, rather a guarantee for cancer and metabolic dysfunction. At any point in time, there are malignant cells somewhere in the body, which are constantly snatched by the immune system. In fact, "rejuvenation"/immortality is a hallmark of cancerous transformation. And let's not forget, embryonic development isn't fully self-governed. The mother's body also checks the embryo's signaling and may abort anything funky. A developed organism doesn't have this external oversight. Auto-immunity and genetic checkpoints is all there is and those mechanisms can become malignant, too.

Did you know, with age, men's somatic cells increasing lack the whole Y-chromosome? It's not at all mission critical and just got lost at some point during mitosis, no biggie, but I think it shows the extent of accumulated genetic disarray in somatic cells.

Embryogenesis is an early fail-fast process. The vast majority of mutations and instabilities are caught through developmental checkpoints. Every living human passed a ruthless selection process in the womb.

So part of the magic of that aging reversal is simply abandoning what doesn't stick. You can't do that to a grown human, obviously.

> The larger issue with the HF incident is that before it occurred, OAI already knew the agents were exploiting Artifactory, turning it into a message board and then gaining full internet access through it. OAI's response to discovering this was not to airgap the test, but instead to simply block that particular Artifactory exploit, rebuild, and then resume. That's ... nuts.

This annoys me so much. Everyone is acting as if the model went rogue, when it really did exactly what it's been trained for. This story is so fucking engineered.

The A in Astra stands for ADHD. It's featuring a neurodiversal net.

This is meaningless semantic drama over a meaningful discovery. From a biological and medical perspective, the collective term "organ" is pretty useless, if there is a distinct progenitor lineage. For the sake of a simplified explanation for the public, describing this discovery as finding "two organs" is absolutely fair.

A similar example: The melanocytes in the skin originate from the neural crest, not the epidermis. As a significant consequence, melanocytes share cell attributes with neurons. One of these attributes is the ability to infiltrate other tissues. Because of that, malignant transformation of melanocytes has vastly different consequences, compared to epithelial cells. If you asked your doctor why squamous cell cancer and melanoma have such different prognoses, describing your skin as effectively "two organs" would be illustrative and easy to understand, without getting into developmental biology.

Buddy, climate change alone is heavily hitting Europe, changing her landscape. Not to mention economic and political trouble brewing. Not sure where OP is from, but if the US attacks Europe OP may not be able to travel there at all.

> Should I just say fuck it, and go hitchhiking across Europe with some friends?

Yes. Assuming you are young and haven't had such experience.

The world is changing not just because of AI. Everything is unstable right now. You may regret not enjoying the remainder of stability and economic viability prior generations had. It's not like you can expect to get ahead by powering through education. Either your career perspective will soon change for the better, or worse. In any case, you gain little by sticking with career building at this moment in life. You are however, at risk of losing the chance to experience the still mostly pleasant world as is.

That was unrelated. They do that every Thursday to see how it feels and if they might have become evil after all.

As if you would know what to do without asking ChatGPT.

This depends on the threat scenario. Sure, in Belgium or the US you won't see defense factories going underground any time soon. But Poland? Doing so already proved a valuable investment for Iran - even facing an enemy with an abundance of fancy bunker busters. Ukraine also started to build energy infrastructure and weapon production sites underground, and even Russia finally started building protected shelters for their military aircraft. I am pretty sure the US will also reconsider their arrogant assumptions of high tech superiority going forward, when it comes to their bases in the middle east, where they got very, very expensive stuff destroyed by Shaheds oversaturating Patriot systems. You see, deep underground cities and bunkers withstanding nuclear strikes are not required. You only need a bit of concrete and dirt to withstand medium yield flying bombs arriving with low kinetic energy (unlike ballistic missiles). Hobbit style housing. A cheap drone will never be able to dig itself into its target, since cheap and fast are incompatible.

That said, of course some important components can't really be protected passively. E.g. comms and sigint will always have expensive, hard to replace antenna arrays exposed. But narrowing vulnerability down to those assets means you can focus scalable air defense and EW measures there.

Again, this benefits the country on the defense, especially against distant enemies, since you can build bunkers etc. at home, but can't really bring them along. And bunkers are one time investments, theoretically good for centuries (WWII/Soviet bunkers are still all over the place in Europe). I think, it would be viable for a peaceful country to almost entirely invest military funds in bunkers, drones, drone comms and crews/AI, and possibly nukes, to discourage any aggressor, while minimizing peacetime running costs . Additionally, highly decentralized renewable energy like solar and wind makes that sectors really hard to disrupt. Especially individual solar installations, battery storage and electric cars potentially enables quasi autarky for large portions of the population. Mighty "petrol station" Russia, got fucked by their reliance on ICE. Solar and wind will work even in nuclear wastelands, and replacing that solar panel is still cheaper than the cheap drone, which damaged it.

Tl;dr: You can restructure military doctrine and defense focus to make bunkers an easy sell to your citizens. In fact, going any other way should raise questions about aggressive ambitions.

Have you seen Halt and Catch Fire? It's really, really good television and may be your kinda thing thematically. Excellent soundtrack too.

Every masterpiece or visionary work, which suffered late recognition is evidence against your proposal.

If art is shaped by popular demand only, you will get nothing but the most comfortable, unchallenging, forgettable popculture fluff imaginable.

The primary value of AI is solving problems AI created and becoming an inefficient interfacing layer for things it made functionally obsolete.

Yes, I also think cheap drones are somewhat of a pacifying development, similar to nuclear bombs, but available to pretty much any nation. (Although, I think ironically nuclear strikes become more likely now, because of drone asymmetry...)

Then again, the US learned nothing from Ukraine and still attacked Iran - the Shahed country. Hopefully, China is a bit more considerate about Taiwan.

I meant defender, as in country being attacked. As in not the the aggressor.

In the concrete instance of AA defense you are correct. You basically can't prevent drone damage actively, since every AA system can be easily overwhelmed and costs are very asymmetrical. However, the damage taken does not change much, strategically. Highways, rail tracks and the ports are quickly operational again. That's my point. See war in Ukraine. Nearly every refinery in Russia has been hit by drones. Complex structures, yet most of them are operational and sustained income damage is comparatively low. Of course that's expensive for Russia, but most of that economic damage is offloaded to the future. Same the other way around. Russia is successfully bombing Ukraine every day, yet the front line has hardly changed in years.

Also, the immediate AA defense perspective is a momentary picture. In the future we will see more underground/protected infrastructure immune to drones, as well as more symmetrical defense options (cheap drone on drone systems, lasers, ...). Cheap drones will not become bunker busters any time soon. Doctrines will also likely adapt more rapid initial escalation since nobody wants the prolonged attritional warfare expected with cheap drones.

I don't want to derail this thread further. I meant 'objection' exclusively in relation to mandatory military service. People who object military service are imprisoned and psychologically tortured in Israel. The lines between collective service and indoctrination are very blurred and military presence is heavily ingrained in the upbringing of their children. That is not how you want to organize a peaceful society.

Overloading the military with civilian functions aids fascistoid developments. The military should serve defense, not power projection. Making it a welfare institution makes warfare a way of life. Relevant documentary: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/

I think they meant the kind of warfare cheap drones encourage. I believe they implied other means may result in quicker conflict resolution.

I think the problem is, apart from deploying nuclear weapons, air-based warfare campaigns have never really been all that effective at achieving strategic goals. Bombing stuff always seems promising, but in reality consequences are hard to predict due to complexity and results tend to be underwhelming.

For the same reason, cheap drones favor the defender IMO. A typical country can sustain quite a bit of damage on home soil, without losing will to fight and popular support. On the other hand, the attacking carrier on their coast line, becomes a singular target instrumental to the aggressor's war efforts. On the front, cheap drones freeze the contact line, which of course also benefits the defender.

Ukraine is very successful at keeping front lines relatively stable, despite man power shortages, due to drones, but neither Ukraine, nor Russia are very successful with their deep strike drone campaigns. I mean stuff is burning all over, but it changes little for ending the war so far. Train tracks are quickly back in operation, refineries repaired, stocks replenished, behavior patterns changed. Population experiencing reverse hedonistic adaptation to the new shitty normal. No models to predict resilience. Collapse may happen instantly or not at all.

Also pretty evident with the US/Israel aggression against Iran right now. It somehow always takes a lot more than expected to break your enemy in the deep.

I meant especially civilian services as alternative. Every human should have the right to decide, if they want the moral implications associated with the military. The military also shouldn't become a substitute civil infrastructure blurring lines of function and funding. E.g. money for education should be spend on public education for everyone, not becoming a incentive for joining the military.

In Germany it's been like that: You objected military service, you had to do mandatory civilian service, e.g. aiding disabled people, for 9 months . I would prefer there to be a choice right from the beginning. So while mandatory to spend a certain amount of your life time for the collective, some agency remains.

Israel is bad example, because there objection is notoriously hard, yet more relevant than ever.