zeofig

It's simple really. You use the power of imagination. In your mind, AI can do anything!

Never bet against Unity

Well that SUCKS!

It does support passkeys.

>A fifth is a unit of volume formerly used for wine and distilled beverages in the United States, equal to one fifth of a US liquid gallon, or 253⁄5 U.S. fluid ounces (757 milliliters)

So it's really not that bad /s

Looks like the Nobel wants to fast track its march towards irrelevancy. What a joke.

I see a lot of people saying "physics has stalled" etc., which is not the case. It may be the case for high energy physics (I would not even make that statement myself with any confidence), but there is a lot of other physics being done.

Perhaps you have less idea what he's thinking than you think you do.

I'm sure it's less popular, but I heard you can google pirate bay proxies and get on there in 2 minutes. Not that I would ever do such an immoral and illegal thing, depriving publishers of their hard-earned dollars! But from what I've heard you can still get any recent media and a lot of older stuff.

I have to admit that I hate them and view them as abominations. But that's just my personal opinion.

I have faith that Nvidia can sell them infinity gpus

Yeah, the chatbot's big draw for me is sidestepping the SEO wasteland.

Yeah it's totally fine. No uncomfortable thoughts bubbling below the surface here.

The Stern-Gerlach experiment is imo the best way to learn the basic idea of quantum mechanics as derived from a reasonably simple experiment. Much better than the double-slit experiment which is more confusing and about which there is a lot of terribly incorrect discussion online.

I would recommend another source with some nice diagrams though, like hyperphysics, or the opening chapter of Modern Quantum Mechanics by Sakurai (although it's a graduate level book, the opening chapter is simple enough).

suckerpinch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c8i5SABqwU Doesn't have the same level of presentation as captain D (who does?) but he combines humour with whimsical technical achievements.

It's (presumably) legitimate research, but it's a long way from market. It's basically a hype article.

The reporting is functioning as intended, don't worry.

I'm only talking about myself, since I'm talking about what I can't deny rationally, i.e. the fact of my own conscious experience. I can't speak for schizophrenics. I don't think you need a definition for your self in the sense that I'm talking about. Like you said, how would such a definition work? Definitions aside, I can't deny the fact of that self, even though I could by a slim margin doubt literally anything else.

I'm talking about the essential process of experiencing whatever comes to pass in my mind and senses. That process would surely continue if my memories disappeared. If all thoughts, memories and senses disappeared, well I can hardly say what would happen. All I can say for certain that my experience is happening right now, and it's not contingent on any particular thought, memory or sense.

I don't identify my "self" (or consciousness) with memories or anything the supposed LLM in my brain might babble about. If you took those things away, I'd still be here. Rationally speaking, self is the only thing that certainly isn't an illusion. Anything you perceive could be a hallucination, memories can change or disappear, and thoughts are mere dust in the wind, but you can't have any of those things without something to perceive them. It's the only thing you know is there, whatever it is.

AGI singularity is science fiction and, while interesting, none of that research comes close to biological immortality in humans. Don't deceive yourself.

If that seems implausible you might want to replause your seemometer. A nuclear plant has much higher energy density than any battery.

When you have implicit reasoners and you grok them? Well...

Sure, so would tiny little mechanical elves that go into your blood and scoop up all the nasties. Maybe AI could design some for us!

Can you infer in which sense I was using it?

>Law was unjust, they had a moral imperative to break it.

I disagree that they had a moral imperative to break it. But our laws must be quite bad because foreign companies seem to love breaking them while claiming the moral highground.

>And if Uber was seeking a monopoly this might be relevant, but they opened the market up for anyone, including those not doing scary financial practices.

Is there any successful rideshare company without similar financial practices? I admit I don't know much about any of them other than Uber. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I'm glad to hear that uber isn't seeking a monopoly.

>Yes, so it should have been the case that the taxi monopolies were broken up decades ago. Not waiting around for VC capital to do it.

Irrelevant to my point, but thanks for the take

They broke the law. Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. In the kind of "any other scenario" you're alluding to, the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.

Reminds me of this great video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLRdruqQfRk

If physics allows it... a considerable assumption. In my view physics (or mathematics, or whatever) doesn't even allow an LLM to "reason", let alone manufacture novel bioweapons. The probability of Jesus returning is considerable too if we assume the bible is true.

On the contrary... way too many people see "AI can do X", "AI can do Y", "I can draw an imaginary line between X, Y and Z", "therefore AI can totally maybe do Z". The fact that we "just don't know" doesn't mean anything. You just don't know if Jesus will return tomorrow and bring the rapture.

Am I still allowed to be skeptical?

I also found that extremely weird. I'm a scientist, or at least I got a STEM PhD before I quit, and I often think about how indeed correlation does not imply causation, and how a lot of science (or the media reporting thereof) seems to think the opposite. I wouldn't use it myself because it sounds a little cliched, but I would be pleased to hear someone utter the phrase. Although it may often be accompanied by some questionable beliefs (it's 2024, we all have them), it indicates that someone has given some kind of thought to something.