They mean 125um = sqrt(a*b), where a is the Planck length* and b the size of the observable universe (I didn't verify). Implying, 125um is some sort of middle ground.
*Often said to be the smallest length with physical meaning.
Piketty's book (Capital in the Twenty-First Century) is most definitely not a fad. It is a result of serious research into historical economic data and anyone intellectually honest ought take it seriously. As anything in the social science of economics, it is subject to debate, but to call it a 'fad' is odd, to put it mildly.
In our current understanding of the world (quantum mechanics), the world is inherently probabilistic ("random", not deterministic) in the microscopic realm. There are differing opinions among physicists whether or not there could be a more fundamental layer of reality beyond this, and if so, whether it would be deterministic. Notably it could be said the mainstream view is that reality is not deterministic.
I mean, who drives 1200km in day anyway? But it is doable with todays EVs, many of which have ranges of around 500km or more, and only need a couple of hours of charging to drive 1200km (after starting with full capacity), during breaks you would mostly take anyways. Teslas, VW's ID.4, Hyundai's Kona electric and many more come to mind.
Cheers for Toyota's research, though.
If someone consumes what you call useless content, why would they use AI to produce anything else? It's not as if there isn't useful content around, already.
Even this would require somehow verifying the raw data. It's plausible a bad actor could "reverse engineer" their data from a pre-determined conclusion.
But yes, overall more openness is good. Still, the cost losing trust in society is very high (as you need to verify everything).
Sorry, but you have a logical fallacy there (affirming the consequent). It does not follow, that humans and LLMs have all same properties, even if they have one same property.
("sentient being is text predictor" does not follow from "text predictor is sentient being").
Absolutely this, well put. I guess enough people misunderstand AI models to the point of treating them like they are not software. I guess this validates Clarke's third law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic).
Well yes, it's the whole crux of the matter. Laws govern human behaviour. As of 2023, only living beings have agency. If I shoot someone with a gun, the criminal is me and not the gun. Being a deterministic piece of silicon, a computer is perfectly equivalent. Sure, it is important to start a discussion of potential nonhuman sentience in the future, but these AI models are not unlike any previous software in legal issues. It's bizarre to me how many people are missing this.
If you are actually being serious, I would caution others from following your example. Houses usually require a certain indoor temperature to prevent problems from moisture buildup in the structure (walls etc).
On the other hand, all kinds of technology have been regulated to minimize adverse effects. The trouble with software is that it is evolving faster than regulators can keep track of, and it is very hard to police even if regulated.