wavewrangler

I thought that it was. I thought journals were starting to implement full bans upwards of a year+ for those who don't honestly disclose AI usage in their work? If I'm not mistaken, arXiv is doing this as well? granted, disclosure is different from overuse, but it seems like a small jump to just go ahead and just ban not checking ones work! ...disclosed or not disclosed. my own personal view on it, is if you can't be bothered to spot hallucinations and other such errors, its not ai that is the issue, it is incompetence and laziness

What do you mean miss? You don’t have the budget to keep something you truly miss for $20? What am in missing here / I don’t mean to criticize I am just curious is all. I would reword but I have to go

Yeah, general propaganda and psyops are actually more effective around 12% - 15%, we find it is more accurate to the user base, thus is questioned less for standing out more /s

You probably know this and are looking for consistency but, a little trick I use is to feed the original data of what I need as a diagram and to re-imagine, it as an image “ready for print” - not native, but still a time saver and just studying with unstructured data or handles this surprisingly well. Again not native…naive, yes. Native, not yet. Be sure to double check triple check as always. give it the ol’ OCD treatment.

You know how certain professions are known for attracting certain pathologies? CEOs/narcissism, car salesman/ lmachiavellianidm and surgeons/God? Reddit moderator/d-bag is not exempt from that phenomenon and for reasons unknown to me, because it’s volunteer (Ok, I can’t say 100%, but mostly it’s volunteer) seems to be some kind of mental illness XP multiplier attractant for the role. Perhaps it empowers people because they’re giving so much of their lives to their own perceived cause, that no one asked for. But there are a lot of good, great even, mods out there. Surely. But anyhow, I’m going back to irc.

Might as well buy a lottery ticket hoping to win enough money to fund your own case rather than cling to the faint hope of finding a pro bono attorney or even one working on contingency. My bitter experience stems directly from my father’s death, caused by gross, willful negligence at the hands of those entrusted with his care. Despite a formal DHHS investigation, which unequivocally substantiated my claims, and over 300 hours of undeniable audio, video, and documented proof illustrating the horrifying ordeal he endured, no one stepped forward to help. Justice wasn’t served, not in this life, nor, it seems, in any other.

It’s not that lawyers told me there wasn’t a case. Instead, they said it was “too complicated.” One attorney spent a week supposedly weighing my meticulously prepared case, only to dismiss it with a curt email: “Regrettably, we have too many other cases to manage additional workloads at this time.” After that, my emails went unanswered, my pleas seemingly silenced by convenience.

Apparently, lawyers today prefer the ripest, lowest hanging fruit, the easy cases promising easy profits. In our society, drowning in incompetence, there’s no shortage of simpler, safer bets. Yet, you’d think there would still be at least a few brave souls seeking justice, not only easy money, who would choose righteousness over profit, integrity over convenience. But I learned the hard way that righteousness rarely outweighs the bottom line.

I handed them an almost complete case, indexed, transcribed, painstakingly timestamped. They didn’t even bother to read it. Beyond the injustice, what wounds me most deeply is the realization that my father’s profound decency, the quiet dignity and unwavering ethics that defined his life, ultimately meant nothing in a system indifferent to such virtues. His goodness didn’t offer him protection or redemption in death. Perhaps it was naive to believe that it ever could.

This realization doesn’t just hurt, it isolates, minimizes, and disillusions. It deepens the bitterness of loss. Forgive me for venting my frustration this way, but it’s all I have left.

I’m sorry, Dad. I truly tried. Turns out, you were right about lawyers, too. I’m writing this with just a few weeks remaining in the statute of limitations. It doesn’t have to be like this, but all indications are that decency simply costs too much for those in power.

But that is not name-calling. In your words, that is snark. Are all snarky comments also name calling now, and vice-versa? One could argue that the comment stands factually with just the first sentence, too. It’s strong, yes, but very different from name calling. I think it’s a valuable tool in learning in that it [snark] reminds us to choose our words very carefully, and we all need reminders of that sometimes. Also…

Rules to live by…

Although I swear this was posted on here just recently, was it not?

God. These AI tools are really showing just how f’d up people are. AI is a scapegoat for the absurdity of society. We are a a scourge! Well, aren’t we? Look at what we’re doing and the way we use this to instinctively conduct psychological warfare on each other! People are facetious. People will kill each other, and people want to lie, steal, and cheat. God almighty. How depressing…

This is a problem that highlights the apparent either lack of effect, or lack of care for, consequences, period. The current consequences in place to deter this abysmal and abhorrent behavior simply aren’t enough. I look around and the world is going nuts, and failing, it seems, to attribute the cause with the effect. Shitty people doing shitty things. We don’t need new laws or regulations, when people aren’t willing or able to abide by the ones currently in place! What good will that do?

You mean poor person. As long as it stomps a poor person. The rich don’t have a habit of getting stomped. They direct other poor people to stomp their contemporaries. The poor don’t have a chance.

Wolfram has always been difficult for me to follow. I think it's because he tends to drone on, I don't know why. I don't think even he knows why. My understanding of what I have managed to listen to or read is that being who we are, we don't process information fast enough in order to see much of what is around us, even while it is happening before us. An example is to take a minute under consideration, you can think about how long a minute is. It's tangible to us. It's not very long. But if we think about how long a femtosecond is, it is not tangible at all. We can't experience a femtosecond. We can experience a whole bunch of femto seconds, but not just one. This is just one example of what I perceived the meaning of his thinking to be. Is that wrong, or so far off? Not only can we not experience a femtosecond, we will never be able to experience a femtosecond because our brains are simply not fast enough and aren't built to exist at such a scale. If that's what it means, then does that mean that he is referring to our ability to exist in certain scales, and our tendency to know the scale in which we exist? And, to exist outside of that scale, requires different computational parameters? Additionally, is this an extension of dimensions, just in time, not space? Does he differentiate between the two?

I know that the perception of scale has more to do with, well, perception, whereas computational irreducibility (as I understand it to be, anyway) is more of a function of natural processes....or THE underlying function from which all other functions stemming from that, are built upon. ... Right? Between that and perception of the scale in which we have evolved to exist in, it seems like they are at least closely related...

Some of what has been discussed here in the comments has me doubting my understanding, is the reason I ask.

To extend my question, could computational irreducibility help to explain why the Universe tends to "recycle" so many parts of itself? Is that some sort of telltale sign that when we see these patterns (golden ratio, fractals, recurring structures in naturee), we are looking at a fundamental aspect of the universe in some form, or it's computationally irreducible equivalent, or is this to be determined?

Patterns, data repetition, self similarity. The universe loves to do this. I.e, Golden ratio. Light waves, ocean waves, snowflakes, etc.

Was this supposed to be one of many tests, the final test, or THE test? I’ll read it again, but the way the writer has it framed makes it appear as if the Air Force conducted a 2800 mile flight-test and said, “Alright, we’ve seen enough,” and called it good.

[quote] “The use of Xwing’s autonomous aircraft eliminated the need to fly a larger aircraft such as a C-130 to deliver critical cargo to the warfighter on short notice,” said Maxime Gariel, president, chief technical officer and co-founder of Xwing. [/quote]

Did it though? All jokes aside, since when was California an active war zone? (I tried to frame this better—-under siege, in a fire-fight, etc. but kept coming up short)

This would be too far a stretch to assume the average skimmer to connect, but as a side-thought, perhaps we should look at it as this marking the beginning of the experiment, rather than the end.

I think the idea is cool and if it can be extended to private applications such as medical and critical, all while lowering costs and increasing access to the general public, that’d be great.

But reading this left me with more questions than answers

This can be induced. This is 90-95% the rule for those who practice what’s known as “astral projection,” as compared to the articles figure of ten percent of the population, for those who have this “syndrome”.

Granted, the name sounds gimmicky, but it’s a very real phenomenon in which the mind remains awake, while the body goes to sleep. It carries with it very distinct, consistent sensations.

While different from a lucid dream, lucid dreams are often used as a segue to this state of consciousness.

Typically, meditation and trance induction techniques are used to reach this state, while many also have no control over it, and they go much, if not all of their lives, assuming it’s like that for everyone. Interestingly, I’d venture an experienced guess and say this occurs in roughly five to ten percent of the population, which is also the number of people who reportedly have this issue in its “syndrome” form. I wonder if there’s a connection? Obviously, the same area of the brain is being activated (or deactivated).

I also wonder if this group of individuals (most of the commenters here) are naturally predisposed to experiencing astral projection on command. It typically takes significant dedication and practice to overcome your mind falling asleep along with your body.

After 25 years of practice, the sounds remain the same for me; a coin, wobbling on the counter getting ready to come to a stop— although much louder. Low frequency noises such as that of an idling ship, and the sound that air makes, swooshing and sucking about, as it escapes from a vacuum. All of these are very typically accompanied by various crackling, popping, and banging.

Additionally, the flashing of lights, sparks, or “energy”, sometimes colorful, sometimes not, is extremely common, if not a requirement, to reaching this state, and this is usually accompanied by a vibrating sensation, which can be intense, but also is harmless.

It seems that whatever this syndrome is, it affects the region/s of the brain responsible for regulating the transition between various states of consciousness.

At this point, classic astral projection would have (or be very close) progressed to feelings of separation or detachment from your body, levitation, and ethereal, hyper-realistic, yet dreamlike, imagery.

It would be interesting to know if researchers have looked at the studies performed on astral projection over the years to see if any of it can be borrowed to assist with determining the cause, if any, of this.

For anyone who experiences noises while falling asleep-do any of the other sensations I mentioned sound familiar to you? Personally, if I didn’t already know better, I would be keen on studying AP to determine if I was naturally inclined for it.

Microsoft is famous for a lack of adoption DESPITE backwards compatibility.

“…Alright, so it can DREAM!!! BUT CAN IT suffer?!?!”

I dunno man. I feel like reading this was definitely work. It surely wasn’t leisure. Have you ever examined code output by gpt where it looks impressive at first glance? That’s what reading this was like. If you’re reading this, I’m just kidding. If you’re not reading this, I’m not kidding.

Used to have a LIDL now we have an ALDI

That’s still 10x. If you think that’s worth mentioning, you should see the 10x engineers swoon over the 100x unicorn.