We found the solutions a long time ago - it’s just that nobody wanted to implement them.

I think it’s quite clear that we did.

The insurance companies saw this coming. That’s why they have the clauses that exclude flood damage.

They don’t only say static types. They add classes, inheritance, subtyping, and virtual calls. Mind you, the difference between the last 3 is quite subtle.

So, since I’ve started nit-picking, Self is also OO and has prototype-based inheritance (as does javascript, but I’m not sure I’d want to defend the claim that javascript is an OO language).

In this post I use the word “OOP” to mean programming in statically-typed language

So Smalltalk is not object-oriented. Someone tell Alan Kay.

If AIs are to find the solution for us, we need one really smart one, not many AIs that are similarly smart to existing ones. He is proposing building more data centres, ie. the latter option.

If we can spot these trends while working 9-5, then an idiot can probably spot them if they spend 40 hours a week on it.

The 5 bullet points do not sound like slang terms to me.

PieDock

We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it’s complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.

Losing 2,000 litres of helium is possibly the worst part of this.

That is the error that the model made. Your quote talks about the causes of these errors. I asked what caused the model to make this error.

Sure, but which of these factors do you think were relevant to the case in the article? The AI seems to have had a large corpus of documents relating to the reporter. Those articles presumably stated clearly that he was the reporter and not the defendant. We are left with “incorrect assumptions made by the model”. What kind of assumption would that be?

In fact, all of the results are hallucinations. It’s just that some of them happen to be good answers and others are not. Instead of labelling the bad answers as hallucinations, we should be labelling the good ones as confirmation bias.

Well, there you are again. You said “my questioning of what you claimed”. That isn’t self reflection. If you aren’t asking in bad faith, you need to spend more time on your wording.

The downvotes are because it seemed that you were asking in bad faith. You said “I believe it is true”, but now you say (admit) that you were questioning it.

The attraction of Linux is precisely that it isn’t one of the two ‘standards’. Your working environment doesn’t get determined by some product manager in a far-away office, who has a set of target users in mind, which he’s given fictional names, biographies and mugshots.

Runs debian unstable. Shuts down his machine every year or so.

The email says that you can do it. It doesn’t say that you can do it without purchasing the upsell option.

The author mentions that some of the changes broke things, but it’s a long way into the article before the word “test” appears. It’s only point 6/7 of his recommendations.

Making changes with no test coverage is not refactoring. It’s just rewriting. Start there.

The top of this comment thread is a person claiming that men do all the hunting in every primitive society, not just hunting based on long distance running.

You came into the thread to criticise a paper that showed that women hunt in 50 different societies around the world. Even your estimate of 50% is plenty enough examples to debunk the “all the hunting” claim.

Women are perfectly capable of drawing a bow that is suitable to hunt monkeys, rabbits, squirrels, small birds, etc. Accuracy is more important than power.

If your strategy for hunting mammoths involves your physical strength, you’re gonna have a bad time.