there is not a single thing that could wipe out a deep sea habitat that wouldnt also wipe any space colonies. but i dont see anybody arguing for that, despite being far more achievable and practical. also, there is no feasible way for space colonies to be self sufficient anywhere in the near future, so wiping out earth also wipes out space colonies relying on it for supplies. this argument aboOt survivability is absurd.

you’ve got it. the period of the sun up/sun down cycle would be the orbital period.

via statistical imitation. other methods, such as solving and implementing by first principles analytically, has not been shown to be np hard. the difference is important but the end result is still no agigpt in the foreseeable and unforeseeable future.

the limitation is specifically using the primary machine learning technique, same one all chatbots use at places claiming to pursue agi, which is statistical imitation, is np-hard.

perhaps you could read the article, but the jist is that in this economic system the good product was so good that people bought it and then sales dried as nobody needed another, rendernng the company bankrupt.

also the answer to that question, shitloads of data for a better ai, is yes… with logarithmic returns. massively underpriced (by cost to generate) returns that have questionable value statement at best.

could you expand on that?

programmer linguistigs is certainly something to behold.

see certain optical illusions in a way that other vision models cannot.

eh… but not in a way that is really like what humans see. which is the articles claim, but it makes a clasically cs approach to nuerology: zero effort to prove the quite substantial claim.

Word soup

that is most certainly not word soup. it’s also an accurate statement, though uncharitable to the authors claims.

Also, the detail in description of their “quantum” inspiration (an effect not unique to quantum mechanics in fact, at that level of description) reads like they skimmed wikipedia’s intro to xyz topic, whether or not the author understands the topics more deeply.

neither are jerks, they simply are what they are trying to survive hostile environments best they can with what they have.

it’s a wasp, it is hungry.

if this observation is even accurate then an alternative explanation is just that people in relationships are more used to being emotionally available, more recently have practiced “relationshipping”, and have a larger social circle.

sorry are you saying people should pronounce their own names in ways they don’t prefer to be “correct”? Also etc etc language guides are descriptive not prescriptive.

fortunately math problems are administered in the context of the class, so it will be pretty obvious that it’s in the complex plane.

I don’t know snough about the crowdstrike stuff in particular to have much of an opinion on it in particular, but I will say that software devs/engineers have long skirted py without any of the accountability present n other engineering fields. If software engineers want to be called engineers, and they should, then this may be an excellnt opportunity to introduce acccountability associations and ethics requirements which prevent or reduce company systemic issues and empower se to enforce good practices.

If they can target the underlying architecture of the models like nightshade does, it will actually be quite hard to deal with for the surveillance companies.

Datas is correct if you are referring to multiple distinct populations of data. Which in this case works.

Yeah this is the key point in all of this. You can speculate forever, until you can confirm it your confidence will be very low.

afaik no known cases

Did you actually look?

Sibling in existence I know asbestos must be airborne. You aren’t refuting anything by repeatedly saying that. Respond to the words I am saying or I can only assume you are copy pasting talking points.